Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Pape,

Organic chemistry has specific rules, especially inside the human body (or a virus) that is a machine and complement of closed and open systems.

We're not talking about a stable piece of inorganic molecule here such as a watch.

And I didn't say "randomness", I said "Choice". A better word for choice is "nonrandom" due to the chemical rules. If you call it a "choice" you're neglecting chemical rules! ~:)

---

Organic chemistry does have specific rules and the formation of molecule bonds is dependent on quantum physics.

However the physical properties of chemicals are emergent. For instance although all chemicals obey quantum physics their melting points and boiling points are dependent on the particular way the molecules bind. This is an order dependent property.

Quote:

---

That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.

---

Free will may then be another emergent property. It is not ,as demonstrated, determined by the rules of something lower in the order. It may be influenced, but it does not mean it is controlled purely by the lower orders properties.

Just like a program is made of binary commands, it does not mean we are limited to binary decisions.

[QUOTE=KafirChobee]What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"

You're mistaken that's what i tried to begin from the start. I say God's an idea, an then someone comes and tells ideas exist, but he's mistaken, then if God's an idea, and ideas are the "product" of work on human mind, and matter came before the idea, then man created God, simple. Now as i already said i don't like religion but i respect it as many other ideas, i only don't want religion messing with the social matters, it's an individual matter if ones believes or not, period.

Orkeny: God does not "look" he doen't exist, and "idea" different from "real".

Al Khalifah: Nothing depends on your belief system in the real world. Again ideas doesn't shape the world. So the chicken first or not, it's only one truth not two truths depending on your point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Organic chemistry does have specific rules and the formation of molecule bonds is dependent on quantum physics.

However the physical properties of chemicals are emergent. For instance although all chemicals obey quantum physics their melting points and boiling points are dependent on the particular way the molecules bind. This is an order dependent property.

---

There are lots of types of organic molecules and they all have different properties and rules governing them. Combine this with the evolved design of, say, a human body, with open and closed systems, you get more rules.

Bonds aren't really that important really, per se. You normally won't eat stuff you can't digest or are instantly toxic, for example. (Chair, keyboard, clorox bleach etc). And your body will break down or kill toxins and pathogens in your body as efficiently as it is able and of course waste is excreted as well (urine, feces, etc. ).

The body already evolved specific rules, mechanisms, and chemical pathways (the bonds are already factored in, and there specific rules in place), that's exactly the point I'm making.

Quote:

---

Free will may then be another emergent property. It is not ,as demonstrated, determined by the rules of something lower in the order. It may be influenced, but it does not mean it is controlled purely by the lower orders properties.

Just like a program is made of binary commands, it does not mean we are limited to binary decisions.

---

That's why it is an illusion. Pain and Pleasure isn't free will. Breathing and Eating ain't free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

That's why it is an illusion. Pain and Pleasure isn't free will. Breathing and Eating ain't free will.

---

Can you prove that freewill is not an emergent property?

That despite feeling hungry you can choose to not eat? Or despite being full you continue to gorge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Can you prove that freewill is not an emergent property?

That despite feeling hungry you can choose to not eat? Or despite being full you continue to gorge?

---

Honestly, I have no idea what emergent is, so I googled it and from the Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Emergence is the process of complex pattern formation from simpler rules. This can be a dynamic process (occurring over time), such as the evolution of the human brain over thousands of successive generations; or emergence can happen over disparate size scales, such as the interactions between a macroscopic number of neurons producing a human brain capable of thought (even though the constituent neurons are not themselves conscious, nor the thoughts always that good).

---

My answer to this is Evolution. Mutation and Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest. If a person chooses not to eat, then that person is a defective machine. We are machines but we are not perfect. Emergence connote perfection (it seems). We are not a perfect machine, hence there's no connection. Our body is imperfect and is subject to entropy.

Energywise, whatever you expend needed to be replenished with food. Your function is Evolutionary system is to survive and reproduce. Whatever you do in between , call it a "choice", or "free will" is an illusion.

Quote:

---

Orkeny: God does not "look" he doen't exist, and "idea" different from "real"..

---

First off dont call me Orkeny. Its like calling King Richard England. ~;)

Again you dont know that god dosent exist and neither does anyone else. How many times do I have to point this out. You say god was an idea of manwheres as creationists say man was an idea of god. Theres nothing to prove your opinion is superior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

First off dont call me Orkeny. Its like calling King Richard England. ~;)

---

Well high king of the yanks Gawain of Orkeny the "Headstrong"~;) . Now you'll have to direct to me as "Raistlin the Soulforged". ~;)

Quote:

---

Again you dont know that god dosent exist and neither does anyone else. How many times do I have to point this out. You say god was an idea of manwheres as creationists say man was an idea of god. Theres nothing to prove your opinion is superior.

---

Yes there's. What is the only "thing" that can be everywhere, in everything, at the same time? What is the only "thing" that has surged in almost every place? Why is God appearing in so many "forms" at so many places? Why others call the God to be the same and others do fundamentalism? Why the problems of the world are not solved? Why is that i can't see God? Why is God so adaptable? Why so many people declare to have seen God or some "emisary"? Why so many religions have a different idea (paradox) of God and why do will always hear something like "misteries of faith" or "God works in mistirious ways"? If you find an acceptable answer to that question then it will be nice for start to warm up. But meanwhile all this aims to one thing an "idea".
RedLeg appears to have understood with less difficulty that God's an idea. Anyway i'll wait for your answer.

Quote:

---

RedLeg appears to have understood with less difficulty that God's an idea.

---

If your trying to say that god isnt tangible thats a no brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Emergence connote perfection (it seems). We are not a perfect machine, hence there's no connection. Our body is imperfect and is subject to entropy.

---

Emergence is not perfection. It is having different properties as the scale changes.

So while a single cell is not capable of thought, a multicelluar organism can.

Thinking is an emergent property. Something that emerges due to the increase in complexity of the system.

It is much like coding in binary to end up with a 6 million colour palette. Although you are coding in 1's and 0's the overall complexity of the system allows new properties.

The properties of life is coded by four molecules that when paired in their correct pairings form a single identical molecule. GATC in DNA. Life is an emergent property of forming complex enough DNA sequences.

My signature alludes to emergence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

My answer to this is Evolution. Mutation and Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest. If a person chooses not to eat, then that person is a defective machine. We are machines but we are not perfect. Emergence connote perfection (it seems). We are not a perfect machine, hence there's no connection. Our body is imperfect and is subject to entropy.

Energywise, whatever you expend needed to be replenished with food. Your function is Evolutionary system is to survive and reproduce. Whatever you do in between , call it a "choice", or "free will" is an illusion.

---

Entropy may actually be a boon when it comes to Evolution. Entropy (loss of information) may actually be a mechansim of mutation.

Evolution is not about you, it is about your genes, you can still choose to die. If your choices result in you not reproducing then your personal set of genes will not be directly present in the next generation. This may have a negative effect on the total number of your genes in the pool, unless your lack of reproduction helps more of your genes then what you could directly reproduce.

It would be an irony to state that lack of reproduction is the only indicator of free will... that would put worker ants at the point of optimum choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Emergence is not perfection. It is having different properties as the scale changes.

So while a single cell is not capable of thought, a multicelluar organism can.

Thinking is an emergent property. Something that emerges due to the increase in complexity of the system.

It is much like coding in binary to end up with a 6 million colour palette. Although you are coding in 1's and 0's the overall complexity of the system allows new properties.

The properties of life is coded by four molecules that when paired in their correct pairings form a single identical molecule. GATC in DNA. Life is an emergent property of forming complex enough DNA sequences.

My signature alludes to emergence.

---

If emergence isn't perfect, then natural selection favors it nonetheless.

Cells needed energy to function and "live". Over the course of evolution that "hunger" for energy naturally selects animals that are "hungry" for "food". Food is the source of energy. Hence, if you poll every .ORG member: Have you eaten in the last 10 days?

You'll get 100% yes 0% no. Unless there's a member which has an eating disorder or a Ghandi-wannabe or or David Blaine-insane. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

If your trying to say that god isnt tangible thats a no brainer.

---

See what is the meaning of real, and of exist. Then talk to me again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Entropy may actually be a boon when it comes to Evolution. Entropy (loss of information) may actually be a mechansim of mutation.

---

Entropy contributes to the mutation but the mutation and information itself is molecular (base-pairs)

Quote:

---

Evolution is not about you, it is about your genes, you can still choose to die. If your choices result in you not reproducing then your personal set of genes will not be directly present in the next generation. This may have a negative effect on the total number of your genes in the pool, unless your lack of reproduction helps more of your genes then what you could directly reproduce.

It would be an irony to state that lack of reproduction is the only indicator of free will... that would put worker ants at the point of optimum choice.

---

If you or anyone chose not to reproduce, that's Natural Selection! (Whether anyone calls it "choice", "free will" or "selfish" or whatever).

That's the point, the system is inescapable because everyone's part of Evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

If emergence isn't perfect, then natural selection favors it nonetheless.

---

Emergence is not just a biological property. Essentially a brick is an object, a house emerges out of assembling multiple bricks.

A grain of sand vs a beach.

A ray of light vs a sunset.

Emergence is a new property to do with adding things together.

Madison, Wisconsin FtW!!!11111111111one111

The Onion rules hardcore; we are the home of liberal satire. ~:cool:
I don't know if I can get away with what's behind this link...but be warned :book:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133 the same issue if I am not mistaken.

~sorry for the interruption, just back from vacation~
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

If you or anyone chose not to reproduce, that's Natural Selection! (Whether anyone calls it "choice", "free will" or "selfish" or whatever).

That's the point, the system is inescapable because everyone's part of Evolution.

---

Evolution does not stop freewill, in fact it might encourage the creation of freewill as the side effect of a more complex self aware creature.

Also if freewill is an evolutionary advantage it is a trait that will lead to more offspring.

Quote:

---

See what is the meaning of real, and of exist. Then talk to me again.

---

Im a bit tired of your condecending attitutde. Your not my teacher or parent so dont go giving me assignments. I fully understand the meaning of real and exist already. Get to your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Im a bit tired of your condecending attitutde. Your not my teacher or parent so dont go giving me assignments. I fully understand the meaning of real and exist already. Get to your point.

---

His point is easily seen - He is trying to point out that God does not exist because he believes that its only an Idea and that there is no physical proof of God in his opinion.

He won't be convinced of the error of his thinking (toward by belief and perspective) - nor will he convince me of the error of my thinking (toward his belief and perspective).

Understanding what he is saying is different from agreeing with what he is stating. I understand his arguement well - its one that many atheists use when discussing religion - some more politely then others.

Quote:

---

His point is easily seen - He is trying to point out that God does not exist because he believes that its only an Idea and that there is no physical proof of God in his opinion.

---

Exactly my thoughts. This is like I said a no brainer.

Quote:

---

Understanding what he is saying is different from agreeing with what he is stating.

---

Yup thats what I mean by his condecending attitude. I fully understand what hes saying I just dissagree with it. Its not like hes come up with some revelation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Evolution does not stop freewill, in fact it might encourage the creation of freewill as the side effect of a more complex self aware creature.

Also if freewill is an evolutionary advantage it is a trait that will lead to more offspring.

---

"Free will" is more of a product of society. Which is like the fourth layer/order of organization. Physics->Chemistry->Biology->Society.

If you are stranded in an island (alone), you're back to the biological basics: Survival and Reproduction(that's all you really are).

Gathering food ain't easy without the social layer. You can't reproduce alone (as a Human) but you'll just basically be on Survival mode. The "free will" dissolves along with the social layer. Where's the Computer, TV, Car, Playstation/X-Box, Cell Phones, Bicycles, Skateboard, Surfboards, Restaurants, Clubs/Disco etc.?

Gawain,

Here's the Leprechaun test: Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or why not?

Quote:

---

Here's the Leprechaun test: Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or why not?

---

Is that supposed to be clever? I find it easier to believe that someone or something made all this ,than all of this came from nothing. Again science also takes a giant leap in faith as most of it you cant prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Is that supposed to be clever? I find it easier to believe that someone or something made all this ,than all of this came from nothing. Again science also takes a giant leap in faith as most of it you cant prove.

---

Gawain,

Just answer the questions, please. Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

"Free will" is more of a product of society. Which is like the fourth layer/order of organization. Physics->Chemistry->Biology->Society.

If you are stranded in an island (alone), you're back to the biological basics: Survival and Reproduction(that's all you really are).

Gathering food ain't easy without the social layer. You can't reproduce alone (as a Human) but you'll just basically be on Survival mode. The "free will" dissolves along with the social layer. Where's the Computer, TV, Car, Playstation/X-Box, Cell Phones, Bicycles, Skateboard, Surfboards, Restaurants, Clubs/Disco etc.?

---

Funny I have always seen free will to be independent of society.

It is your choice as an individual not those of society.

Stuck alone on a desert island... it is my choice when to go to sleep, what to hunt and gather, where to go and what to do. I am free of social constraints and the clock. I am the clock and I am the society... even if it requires a bit more talking to myself outloud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Exactly my thoughts. This is like I said a no brainer.



Yup thats what I mean by his condecending attitude. I fully understand what hes saying I just dissagree with it. Its not like hes come up with some revelation.

---

I didn't came up with a revelation, you came up with a question: Can you prove that God is an idea? Well i answered to that, you still didn't answered to me and are just making insults like "no brainer". If it's a "no brainer" then figure the answer for yourself to my questions and give an answer already. You seem to answer always with "no brainer" or i prefer that or that, than with a real answer, not another question an answer.

PS: I don't really see why you people discuse free will as a certain thing when even the highest minds on social science don't agree about the existence of such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

PS: I don't really see why you people discuse free will as a certain thing when even the highest minds on social science don't agree about the existence of such a thing.

---

Its because free will is not a science its a philisophy. Man's ability to think beyond the immediate survival situations is what constitutes Free Will.

Quote:

---

I didn't came up with a revelation, you came up with a question: Can you prove that God is an idea?

---

Nice twist. I never asked that you said that god was an idea not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

I don't know for certain that my girlfriend is cheating on me right now. She might be sleeping with other men/women. I could follow her round all the time and keep her under constant surveillance, but I prefer to rely on a little something called faith.

---

Well now, I suppose that myself and the rest of my rugby team oughta come clean here.....












~;)

Seamus

Wow, you that dug deep into this thread to quote my post and bring us that absolute 'gem' of a 'joke'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

Wow, you that dug deep into this thread to quote my post and bring us that absolute 'gem' of a 'joke'.

---

Alright, I'll admit that Seinfeld isn't feeling threatened by my comic talents. ~:)

As to depth, I actually read this thread for the first time today. Some of the longer ones I steer clear of til I have time.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

PS: I don't really see why you people discuse free will as a certain thing when even the highest minds on social science don't agree about the existence of such a thing.

---

What an arrogant statement, only the elite in social science who can't even agree can decide. You really love your social elites now... :dizzy2:

It is not limited to social science, it actually goes into hard core science, when examning neural networks in computer science and physics (ie mapping out what consitutes AI).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Funny I have always seen free will to be independent of society.

It is your choice as an individual not those of society.

Stuck alone on a desert island... it is my choice when to go to sleep, what to hunt and gather, where to go and what to do. I am free of social constraints and the clock. I am the clock and I am the society... even if it requires a bit more talking to myself outloud.

---

Pape,

You can't take the machine out of man, because man is a machine.

This machine obeys chemical rules. Those chemical rules state:

1) Survive and Reproduce.

"Free will" is secondary and survival mechanisms always override it. Unless of course when you try to sleep, and there's a Wild Cat (Lion) beside you. You will either fight or run away from that threat. You will not say "goodnight big kitty" and count sheep. If you see a Wild Cat outside your window, you won't run away or fight it since it's not an immediate threat, instead you will call the police to get rid of the threat.

"Free will" is a function of society because without Society, you'll always be on Survival mode. You will worry about predators night and day and where you get your food all the time.

Inside of Society, survival is relatively easy. Combine that with the many "choices" Society offers and you get the illusion of "free will".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Pape,

You can't take the machine out of man, because man is a machine.

This machine obeys chemical rules. Those chemical rules state:

---

1) I think you need to read up about emergence.

2) The actions of survival of the fittest is not a chemical rule set. It is a gene rule set, more akin to computer rules then chemistry rules. The imperfect replicator does not have to be based on chemistry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

1) I think you need to read up about emergence.

2) The actions of survival of the fittest is not a chemical rule set. It is a gene rule set, more akin to computer rules then chemistry rules. The imperfect replicator does not have to be based on chemistry.

---

1) Emergence is "philosophy". You need to elaborate on how emergence factors into all this first.

2) Chemical pathways are encoded in the DNA. Your whole (initial) body structure is encoded in the DNA. What are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

1) Emergence is "philosophy". You need to elaborate on how emergence factors into all this first.

---

Actually emergence is more then just philosophy.

It is why we don't all just study physics and use fundamental physics to explain the world around us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Its because free will is not a science its a philisophy. Man's ability to think beyond the immediate survival situations is what constitutes Free Will.

---

Yes i know that, but they're making assunptions over the principle of the existence of such a thing. It has a wide aplication on science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

First off dont call me Orkeny. Its like calling King Richard England. ~;)

Again you dont know that god dosent exist and neither does anyone else. How many times do I have to point this out. You say god was an idea of manwheres as creationists say man was an idea of god. Theres nothing to prove your opinion is superior.

---

I'm not being condecendent just for the placer of being one, but you really didn't give me any direct answer. I assume that here you're asking me to prove you that God's an idea. Or on the other hand you're saying that there's no point on the disscusion because neither of the points are superior, and there will never be a way to prove the superiority. Either way i would ask you to answer my questions again, if you don't want to do it, then simply say so, if you want to do it then do it. Anyway i didn't mean to be condecending, i forget some times that this kind of discussion is not at all trandescendent. From my side is all cool ~:cheers: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Actually emergence is more then just philosophy.

It is why we don't all just study physics and use fundamental physics to explain the world around us.

---

Ok, where's the connection between emergence and whatever is your argument is?

My point is:
All the chemical pathways are encoded your DNA, as well as the structure of your body and everything else including immune system, learning etc. The mechanisms are already there.

All you really do is Survive (breathe, eat, sleep, drink, sleep, poop, avoid predators etc.) so the mechanisms inside your body will continue:

Then you Reproduce, so all the chemical mechanisms that was naturally selected will continue in your offspring.

Everything else is an ILLUSION! Call it "free will" call it spinning-your-head-on-the-table-while-balancing plates. It's all an illusion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Ok, where's the connection between emergence and whatever is your argument is?

My point is:
All the chemical pathways are encoded your DNA, as well as the structure of your body and everything else including immune system, learning etc. The mechanisms are already there.

All you really do is Survive (breathe, eat, sleep, drink, sleep, poop, avoid predators etc.) so the mechanisms inside your body will continue:

Then you Reproduce, so all the chemical mechanisms that was naturally selected will continue in your offspring.

Everything else is an ILLUSION! Call it "free will" call it spinning-your-head-on-the-table-while-balancing plates. It's all an illusion!

---

Can you describe all chemical properties purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe cells purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe interactions between multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?

Why or why not would you do it purely using fundamental physics particles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Can you describe all chemical properties purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe cells purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe interactions between multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?

Why or why not would you do it purely using fundamental physics particles?

---

What does it have anything to do with specific chemical pathways in your body that evolved inside your body? It's Organic chemistry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Ok, where's the connection between emergence and whatever is your argument is?

My point is:
All the chemical pathways are encoded your DNA, as well as the structure of your body and everything else including immune system, learning etc. The mechanisms are already there.

All you really do is Survive (breathe, eat, sleep, drink, sleep, poop, avoid predators etc.) so the mechanisms inside your body will continue:

Then you Reproduce, so all the chemical mechanisms that was naturally selected will continue in your offspring.

Everything else is an ILLUSION! Call it "free will" call it spinning-your-head-on-the-table-while-balancing plates. It's all an illusion!

---

So when you get hit by a car and your arm is broken - its all an illusion.

Now that is just to damn funny. Your getting out of science into philisophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So when you get hit by a car and your arm is broken - its all an illusion.

Now that is just to damn funny. Your getting out of science into philisophy.

---

You seemed to have missed the word in bold: Survive. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

You seemed to have missed the word in bold: Survive. ~:)

---

Not at all - I am addressing the use of the word illusion. Man functions in an environment that is far from being an illusion. To attempt to break it down to chemical reactions and then claim everything else is only illusion discounts how the environment and human beings interact.

You have talked yourself into a circle - if everything out side of survive and reproduce is illusion - then your no longer talking about science - your discussing philisophy.

Again - if you are hit by a car and your arm is broke is it an illusion? or is it reality?

If you are looking at a car and you notice that the tire is flat - is it an illusion or is it reality?

Simple questions - simple answer.

Now the hard one.

If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there does it make a sound?

If there is no such thing as free will, then why are we posting here?

Shouldn't we all be clubbing an animal or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

What does it have anything to do with specific chemical pathways in your body that evolved inside your body? It's Organic chemistry.

---

Precisely my point. Organic Chemistry has a different set of properties that have emerged from using multiple fundamental particles.

Cells then have emergent properties that are different to those of chemistry.

Multicellular have emergent properties.

A multicellular neuron structure can do things that a single neuron cannot... thinking is an emergent ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

If there is no such thing as free will, then why are we posting here?

Shouldn't we all be clubbing an animal or something?

---

Well this is large enough to another thread. But not make assumptions to fast, the most eminents minds on Earth try to reamain agnostic to this matter and simply ignore it because of the many problems on aplication that denying it totally or accepting it totally will provoque.
The main question is: How do you know that you are not determined from the beggining of time and space to do what you do? And also the acceptance will also imply many other things that cannot be discussed here in extent, but one of them is: That you're omniscient in some way and you know exactly how many options do you have to fulfill your "free will", threfore it implies a perfect knowledge of the universe that surrounds you. Those are just two matters that surround the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there does it make a sound?

---

I used exactly the same frase (though wrong written- as always :embarassed: ) to state the same point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I used exactly the same frase (though wrong written- as always :embarassed: ) to state the same point.

---

I missed it when you wrote it - its a good philisophical question though is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I missed it when you wrote it - its a good philisophical question though is it not?

---

Yes ~:cheers: . But the idea it proposes it's already accepted as scientific truth in sociology and as simply true in philosophy.

If it is an airless wood then no sound ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

If it is an airless wood then no sound ~:cool:

---

Hey i only believed that gringo jokes (can i call Americans gringos, because i really don't like that denomination) were bad. But it seems that bad jokes are after all the most powerful force of all, and that ideas can cross Oceans. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Precisely my point. Organic Chemistry has a different set of properties that have emerged from using multiple fundamental particles.

Cells then have emergent properties that are different to those of chemistry.

Multicellular have emergent properties.

A multicellular neuron structure can do things that a single neuron cannot... thinking is an emergent ability.

---

What does mutation and natural selection mean to you?

The chemical pathways was caused by natural mutation and natural selection, that's it. Whether you call it emergent doesn't matter, because your body follows the chemical pathways. If they don't follow, then they are simply naturally selected out.

All that thinking is just an illusion, you're not going to drive when you are blind or use a headphone if you have no hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Not at all - I am addressing the use of the word illusion. Man functions in an environment that is far from being an illusion. To attempt to break it down to chemical reactions and then claim everything else is only illusion discounts how the environment and human beings interact

You have talked yourself into a circle - if everything out side of survive and reproduce is illusion - then your no longer talking about science - your discussing philisophy.

---

You missed the whole point. "Free will" is an illusion because it ain't your primary function, hence betraying the very meaning of "free will".

Quote:

---

Again - if you are hit by a car and your arm is broke is it an illusion? or is it reality?

---

It's real alright, but where's your "free will" to use your broken/injured arm? Or does it hurt? ~;)

Quote:

---

If you are looking at a car and you notice that the tire is flat - is it an illusion or is it reality?

---

What does a flat tire have to do with your 'free will"

Quote:

---

Simple questions - simple answer.

Now the hard one.

If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there does it make a sound?

---

Easy as heck. Yes. Sound is just a difference in air-pressure. When a tree falls, it creates a difference in air-pressure, hence propagating soundwaves. Whether that soundwave hits your ear is another story.

I can see the next theory.. in a dream. I see the Intelligent Rain Theory, stating that since God is pushing things down to Earth, there must be an infinite amount of water in the sky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

You missed the whole point. "Free will" is an illusion because it ain't your primary function, hence betraying the very meaning of "free will".

---

Not missing your point at all - your discussing a philisophy not science. So the brain does not have a function beyond controlling your bodily functions - now that is funny.

Quote:

---

It's real alright, but where's your "free will" to use your broken/injured arm? Or does it hurt? ~;)

---

You claimed everything outside of survive is an illusion - well breaking your arm is a reality - the reason it was broke was outside of the human need to survive. The choice to get it fixed is only in the human condition - animals have no choice to have it repaired unless a human is involved.

Quote:

---

What does a flat tire have to do with your 'free will"

---

Because if the tire is flat you now have a choice to change it or not change it - the essence of free will. Choice.

Quote:

---

Easy as heck. Yes. Sound is just a difference in air-pressure. When a tree falls, it creates a difference in air-pressure, hence propagating soundwaves. Whether that soundwave hits your ear is another story.

---

That is the science answer - now try the philisophy one.

Quote:

---

That is the science answer - now try the philisophy one.

---

Philosophy shouldn´t try to give different answers on the same questions as science. Science always wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Philosophy shouldn´t try to give different answers on the same questions as science. Science always wins.

---

Ah then you don't understand the nature of the question. Nor the reason behind why it is a philisophy question not a science one. Or is it that you do not care to understand the difference?

Science explains a lot - but philisophy is what makes us man - if it wasn't for the ability to think and philisophize (SP) then we are nothing.

http://www.spectacle.org/396/scifi/tree.html

Quote:

---

How can we deal with ethical situations if we can't even define our terms?

One of the great dumb philosphy questions is, "If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The obvious answer is: "Of course there is. What a stupid question. Next you're going to ask about that clapping thing." But philosophy isn't about the obvious; philosophy is about the devious. The answer, arrived after much debate (and much drinking) seems to be "no": Sound is only sound if a person hears it, claim the tipsy pundits.

---

An interesting essay on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Not missing your point at all - your discussing a philisophy not science. So the brain does not have a function beyond controlling your bodily functions - now that is funny.

---

"Free Will" is an illusion because what really matters to your body is to Survive and Reproduce, hereby improving the preserving and improving the mechanism and structure of your offspring in the next generation. That's what you are, that's Evolution.

Quote:

---

You claimed everything outside of survive is an illusion - well breaking your arm is a reality - the reason it was broke was outside of the human need to survive. The choice to get it fixed is only in the human condition - animals have no choice to have it repaired unless a human is involved.

---

The "choice" to fix it was a Survival function, not "free will".

Quote:

---

Because if the tire is flat you now have a choice to change it or not change it - the essence of free will. Choice.

---

You fix the tire so you can go SAFE to your home. Survival function, not "free will"

Quote:

---

That is the science answer - nowa try the philisophy one.

---

There's no Philosophy answer.

It depends on how you define your terms in the question. If you define "Sound" as an electrochemical interpretation in your brain, then NO, because the soundwave - which is the physical phenomenon - did not reach your ears.

If you define "Sound" as soundwaves, then YES, because a soundwave is a soundwave whether you hear and interpret it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

"Free Will" is an illusion because what really matters to your body is to Survive and Reproduce, hereby improving the preserving and improving the mechanism and structure of your offspring in the next generation. That's what you are, that's Evolution.

---

Free will is what allows you to type on your computer and philsophize your view of evolution and human development. If man's existance was only about survive and reproduce we would not have this type of discussion - because we would be busy finding food and looking for women in cycle to breed with. Concepts of love and life long mates would not be around. Some of the greatest inventions of man would not be around - we would once again only focusing on survivial.

Again you have gone away from science and into philisophy. Its to bad that you can not recongize it.

Quote:

---

The "choice" to fix it was a Survival function, not "free will".

---

You would be incorrect - if a wolf breaks its leg - it can not get it fixed. Man is the only being that can fix our broken parts - fixing parts is something beyond the survival insticts of animals.

Quote:

---

You fix the tire so you can go SAFE to your home. Survival function, not "free will"

---

Again you would be incorrect - you don't need your car to survive - you only need your feet - survival means a specific thing.

Survive - 1 : to remain alive or in existence : live on
2 : to continue to function or prosper

Survival - a : a living or continuing longer than another person or thing b : the continuation of life or existence

Now explain to me in sciencific terms how fixing a flat tire - equates to a survival function - using the correct defination of survival.

Quote:

---

There's no Philosophy answer.

---

You would be incorrect - its an question that is asked all the time in philosophy - or at least in the 1983-1987 time frame - in several philosophy classes I was in.

Quote:

---

It depends on how you define your terms in the question. If you define "Sound" as an electrochemical interpretation in your brain, then NO, because the soundwave - which is the physical phenomenon - did not reach your ears.

If you define "Sound" as soundwaves, then YES, because a soundwave is a soundwave whether you hear and interpret it or not.

---

Oh I am more then aware of how sound functions - did a couple of soundwave studies about how Artillery Rounds were effecting the civilians around Fort Lewis. Sound can do some very interesting things.

However once again - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there - does it make a sound?

Quietus- The answer is no. If there's nobody to hear, it doesn't make sound. Understandable i think. We could go on this discussion for weeks, but you'll loose always, this idea is accepted by phylosophy and applied in science,it has much aplication in social science. The things that exists are those things that one can percive, so the sound don't exists if nobody hears it. Simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Free will is what allows you to type on your computer and philsophize your view of evolution and human development. If man's existance was only about survive and reproduce we would not have this type of discussion - because we would be busy finding food and looking for women in cycle to breed with. Concepts of love and life long mates would not be around. Some of the greatest inventions of man would not be around - we would once again only focusing on survivial.

Again you have gone away from science and into philisophy. Its to bad that you can not recongize it.

---

That's why it's an illusion, because your true function is hidden from you.

Quote:

---

You would be incorrect - if a wolf breaks its leg - it can not get it fixed. Man is the only being that can fix our broken parts - fixing parts is something beyond the survival insticts of animals.

---

If a wolf breaks its legs, the wolf won't move or use that leg because it 'hurts'. The bone will self repair if it is in place.

Quote:

---

Again you would be incorrect - you don't need your car to survive - you only need your feet - survival means a specific thing.

Survive - 1 : to remain alive or in existence : live on
2 : to continue to function or prosper

Survival - a : a living or continuing longer than another person or thing b : the continuation of life or existence

---

You continue to function as the machine you are.

Quote:

---

Now explain to me in sciencific terms how fixing a flat tire - equates to a survival function - using the correct defination of survival.

---

Why are you fixing the flat tire? If you don't fix the flat tire you'll be scared won't make it home safely.

Quote:

---

You would be incorrect - its an question that is asked all the time in philosophy - or at least in the 1983-1987 time frame - in several philosophy classes I was in.

---

~:confused: See below....

Quote:

---

Oh I am more then aware of how sound functions - did a couple of soundwave studies about how Artillery Rounds were effecting the civilians around Fort Lewis. Sound can do some very interesting things.

However once again - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there - does it make a sound?

---

Equivocation is a logical fallacy. Sound and Soundwaves are two different things.

1) Sound is the conversion and electrochemical interpretation of Soundwaves in your ear and to your brain.

2) Soundwave is a differential in air-pressure.

So, define what is "Sound" first in your question, 1 or 2?

If you answer 1, then NO.
If you answer 2, then YES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Quietus- The answer is no. If there's nobody to hear, it doesn't make sound. Understandable i think. We could go on this discussion for weeks, but you'll loose always, this idea is accepted by phylosophy and applied in science,it has much aplication in social science. The things that exists are those things that one can percive, so the sound don't exists if nobody hears it. Simple.

---

Sound and Soundwaves are two different things. See my above post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Sound and Soundwaves are two different things. See my above post.

---

That's incorrect both things are the same phenomenum, one is the significate granted to the material one happening on the real world and the other is the perception of it in the ears and it's interpretation by the brain (with this all you're contradicting the very significance of the frase), but that doesn't say anything. The thing is like this: the humans create the reality by perception, and real is what exists. So what exists is what you perceive. If you can't perceive (sense) the things by any means then they aren't there. Anyway you're going far beyond what the refran states (stick to the words). Sound is only sound if you hear it. As a human is a human only if he has other things to perceive and difference himself, and if he has an human to reflect and identify himself. As God is only God is we believe in it (but here i'll be attacked again).
The basic premise is: the man creates reality by perception, there's no reality without perception.

It doesn't matter who wins the "free will" debate. We are what we are and that is the fact of things. We do what we do and that is the fact of things. Whether or not we do it "freely" is beyond the scope of our existence.

As the song says-- "Yo soy como soy y nada mas, yo vivo mi vida pa' gozar."

DA

edit-- dumb typo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

It doesn't matter who wins the "free will" debate. We are what we are and that is the fact of things. We do what we do and that is the fact of things. Whether or not we do it "freely" is beyond the scope of our existence.

As the song says-- "Yo soy como soy y nada mas, yo vivo mi vida pa' gozar."

DA

edit-- dumb typo

---

Bueno aunque no estabamos discutiendo la existencia del libre albedrio...sorry. Though we were not discussing the existence of the free will (because everybody seems to take that for certain thing) i've to say that that song sucks. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

That's why it's an illusion, because your true function is hidden from you.

---

Again that is philosophy not science -

the true function is not hidden; unless of course you believe in a supreme being - which from your attack on religion in your very post post - the assumption is that you are not religious. So regarding a sciencific explanation - your true function is not hidden. By calling it an illusion - you have entered into the area of philosophy no matter how much you attempt to deny it - that is exactly what it is. Does man think - is our ability to have abstract thought an illusion? Or is it what makes us unique of all other life on this planet.

Quote:

---

If a wolf breaks its legs, the wolf won't move or use that leg because it 'hurts'. The bone will self repair if it is in place.

---

LOL - my guess is that you have no idea what a wild animal will do. But I do have a little experience in trapping and tracking wild animals - they move with broken bones. So will a dog. Wild animals will ignore the pain if its a matter of survival - or they will be killed or die depending on the situation.

Quote:

---

You continue to function as the machine you are.

---

Again you would be incorrect - man is not a machine - we are much more then that.

Quote:

---

Why are you fixing the flat tire? If you don't fix the flat tire you'll be scared won't make it home safely.

---

Again that constutes more then survivial - notice the enteing of fear into your equation of illusion and survivial. Seems that there are some problems defending your psuedo science here of stating man has survive, reproduction, and illusion as our only functions. It seems not only do you wish to disregard the sciencific methods used to postulate evolution as a viable theory - remember the discussion on Artificial selection and selective breeding, but now we are mixing philosophy and science to support a theory of evolution.

Quote:

---

~:confused: See below....

---

Not surprised at all that you are confused - you are mixing science and philosophy together. And you attacked religion for doing the same thing. This has really been enjoyable for me.

Quote:

---

Equivocation is a logical fallacy. Sound and Soundwaves are two different things.

1) Sound is the conversion and electrochemical interpretation of Soundwaves in your ear and to your brain.

2) Soundwave is a differential in air-pressure.

So, define what is "Sound" first in your question, 1 or 2?

If you answer 1, then NO.
If you answer 2, then YES.

---

Yes indeed equivocation is a logical fallacy - however you still have not answered the philosophical question of

if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there - does it make a sound?

Here I will give you a clue from the type of question you asked many posts ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?

---

However since you brought up logical fallacies again - I wonder if you can state how many logical fallacies you have committed in this arguement. Hell I will let you off the hook real easy - just admit that the Onion Article fooled you because of your own baised views against the Christian Faith. And I will ignore your logical fallacies on evolution where you disregrad Darwain's sciencific method of proving natural selection and mutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

That's incorrect both things are the same phenomenum, one is the significate granted to the material one happening on the real world and the other is the perception of it in the ears and it's interpretation by the brain (with this all you're contradicting the very significance of the frase), but that doesn't say anything. The thing is like this: the humans create the reality by perception, and real is what exists. So what exists is what you perceive. If you can't perceive (sense) the things by any means then they aren't there. Anyway you're going far beyond what the refran states (stick to the words). Sound is only sound if you hear it. As a human is a human only if he has other things to perceive and difference himself, and if he has an human to reflect and identify himself. As God is only God is we believe in it (but here i'll be attacked again).
The basic premise is: the man creates reality by perception, there's no reality without perception.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again that is philosophy not science -

the true function is not hidden; unless of course you believe in a supreme being - which from your attack on religion in your very post post - the assumption is that you are not religious. So regarding a sciencific explanation - your true function is not hidden. By calling it an illusion - you have entered into the area of philosophy no matter how much you attempt to deny it - that is exactly what it is. Does man think - is our ability to have abstract thought an illusion? Or is it what makes us unique of all other life on this planet.



LOL - my guess is that you have no idea what a wild animal will do. But I do have a little experience in trapping and tracking wild animals - they move with broken bones. So will a dog. Wild animals will ignore the pain if its a matter of survival - or they will be killed or die depending on the situation.



Again you would be incorrect - man is not a machine - we are much more then that.



Again that constutes more then survivial - notice the enteing of fear into your equation of illusion and survivial. Seems that there are some problems defending your psuedo science here of stating man has survive, reproduction, and illusion as our only functions. It seems not only do you wish to disregard the sciencific methods used to postulate evolution as a viable theory - remember the discussion on Artificial selection and selective breeding, but now we are mixing philosophy and science to support a theory of evolution.



Not surprised at all that you are confused - you are mixing science and philosophy together. And you attacked religion for doing the same thing. This has really been enjoyable for me.




Yes indeed equivocation is a logical fallacy - however you still have not answered the philosophical question of

if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there - does it make a sound?

Here I will give you a clue from the type of question you asked many posts ago.



However since you brought up logical fallacies again - I wonder if you can state how many logical fallacies you have committed in this arguement. Hell I will let you off the hook real easy - just admit that the Onion Article fooled you because of your own baised views against the Christian Faith. And I will ignore your logical fallacies on evolution where you disregrad Darwain's sciencific method of proving natural selection and mutation.

---

:no:

Sound = Electrochemical Conversion + Interpretion of Soundwaves inside your ear and to your brain.

Soundwaves = Differential in air-pressure.

If there is no conversion and interpretation, then there is NO sound, but Soundwaves still exist. It simply means the soundwaves aren't hitting your healthy ears and being converted to signals.

If you are completely deaf, then there will be NO sound in your head, but it doesn't mean the stereo isn't playing. The soundwaves are still there. Two different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

:no:

Sound = Electrochemical Conversion + Interpretion of Soundwaves inside your ear and to your brain.

Soundwaves = Differential in air-pressure.

If there is no conversion and interpretation, then there is NO sound, but Soundwaves still exist. It simply means the soundwaves aren't hitting your healthy ears and being converted to signals.

If you are completely deaf, then there will be NO sound in your head, but it doesn't mean the stereo isn't playing. The soundwaves are still there. Two different things.

---

I already know the definition, and i understand you man ~:cheers: . But you didn't understand me. Stick to the frase, and remember this is phylosophy.

Other thing if you know so well the definition then don't go around asking for the exact meaning of sound in the frase. That's nonsense. Sound is sound nothing more, you seem to know this pretty well, then why do you ask for the exact meaning in the frase if there's only one. ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I already know the definition, and i understand you man ~:cheers: . But you didn't understand me. Stick to the frase, and remember this is phylosophy.

Other thing if you know so well the definition then don't go around asking for the exact meaning of sound in the frase. That's nonsense. Sound is sound nothing more, you seem to know this pretty well, then why do you ask for the exact meaning in the frase if there's only one. ~:confused:

---

~:eek: How many times do I have to repeat this.... Sound and Soundwaves are DIFFERENT.

Soundwaves are converted inside your ear into electrochemical signals to your brain and that interpretation of that electrochemical signal is called a sound.

Hence, you must define what you mean by "sound". "Sound is" NOT "a sound nothing more", that's the point.

When you say: the speed of sound, that's the speed of Soundwaves.

When you say: the sound of music, that's the conversion and interpretation of Soundwaves, from your ear to the brain.

Two different things. You can't equivocate. Thus, you must define what you mean by "sound" in the question, because the answer depends on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

~:eek: How many times do I have to repeat this.... Sound and Soundwaves are DIFFERENT.

Soundwaves are converted inside your ear into electrochemical signals to your brain and that interpretation of that electrochemical signal is called a sound.

Hence, you must define what you mean by "sound". "Sound is" NOT "a sound nothing more", that's the point.

When you say: the speed of sound, that's the speed of Soundwaves.

When you say: the sound of music, that's the conversion and interpretation of Soundwaves, from your ear to the brain.

Two different things. You can't equivocate. Thus, you must define what you mean by "sound" in the question, because the answer depends on it.

---

Is not my question is the question of Confucious. Like i said i already know the specifical difference, but they're both the same phenomenum, one causes the other, so took together they represent the same phenomenum at the point of sound. But again if they've two different definitions then why ask for an exact definition when you're giving it yourself. Anyway it's sound ok, just sound.
Let me tell you a similar frase so you can understand the point of this (either you want it to be soundwaves or just sound): "Eyes that not see, heart that not feel" (sorry for the translation, but i think you understand that). So again (without entering the complex system of the brain, wich didn't existed in times of Confucious) if there's nobody (no nothing, but nobody) to hear does anything makes sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Is not my question is the question of Confucious. Like i said i already know the specifical difference, but they're both the same phenomenum, one causes the other, so took together they represent the same phenomenum at the point of sound. But again if they've two different definitions then why ask for an exact definition when you're giving it yourself. Anyway it's sound ok, just sound.
Let me tell you a similar frase so you can understand the point of this (either you want it to be soundwaves or just sound): "Eyes that not see, heart that not feel" (sorry for the translation, but i think you understand that). So again (without entering the complex system of the brain, wich didn't existed in times of Confucious) if there's nobody (no nothing, but nobody) to hear does anything makes sound?

---

Analogously:

Question: If you sail over the horizon, would you fall off the edge?
Answer: NO. The Earth is "round". Period.

There's no philosophical answer.

You can't say: "Well, two thousand years ago, Philosopher X didn't know the earth is round, so what's your philosophical answer to this?" :dizzy2:

~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Analogously:

Question: If you sail over the horizon, would you fall off the edge?
Answer: NO. The Earth is "round". Period.

There's no philosophical answer.

You can't say: "Well, two thousand years ago, Philosopher X didn't know the earth is round, so what's your philosophical answer to this?" :dizzy2:

~:cool:

---

Well you didn't answer my question. That excuse of the author was given only because i was looking from your point of view. You can suppose what you want. But you seem to let the value of science overrule your rationality. Do you've in mind what the phylosophy does? As the text quoted by Redleg said, "it's about the devious not the obvious". You simply can't let your belief in the certainty of the scientific knowledge blind your other senses and your perception and capacity of reflexión. In this example you're confusing everything: is not the same to ask about the things that your senses can easly percieve, that talk about what needs reflexión. In any case, many a social scientist, talks about the significance of this sentence, and i already gave some examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Well you didn't answer my question. That excuse of the author was given only because i was looking from your point of view. You can suppose what you want. But you seem to let the value of science overrule your rationality. Do you've in mind what the phylosophy does? As the text quoted by Redleg said, "it's about the devious not the obvious". You simply can't let your belief in the certainty of the scientific knowledge blind your other senses and your perception and capacity of reflexión. In this example you're confusing everything: is not the same to ask about the things that your senses can easly percieve, that talk about what needs reflexión. In any case, many a social scientist, talks about the significance of this sentence, and i already gave some examples.

---

I've already addressed and answered the question many times.

Deaf Person + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Water + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Trees + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Rock + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Shoes + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Human + Soundwaves = Electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = Sound.

If the tree falls in the forest, soundwaves will be propagated. The soundwaves will not hit your ear, hence there will be no sound, but it doesn't mean the falling tree doesn't create soundwaves. Sound and Soundwaves are different.

1) Tree falling = Soundwaves.

2) Sound = Human (ear & brain) + Soundwaves.

3) Sound = Human (ear & brain) + Tree Falling.

If you remove the Human (ear & brain) from the third equation, it is no longer Sound. But it doesn't mean there are no Soundwaves. A falling tree doesn't create Sound, it only creates Soundwaves.

4) Sound - Human = Human - Human + Tree Falling.

5) Sound - (Sound - Soundwaves)* = Tree Falling

6) Sound - Sound + Soundwaves = Tree Falling

7) Soundwaves = Tree Falling

8) Tree Falling = Soundwaves.

* = Rearrange equation 2.

Well ok i'm a little tired of this discussion. If you like it that way... ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Deaf Person + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Water + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Trees + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Rock + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Shoes + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Human + Soundwaves = Electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = Sound.

---

Now don't take this the wrong way; it's not intended as an insult. I just found the above list rather interesting. If you look at the list as a whole, it would appear that deaf people aren't human. I know that you didn't intend this; but sometimes the unintentional speaks volumes. You might want to revise your list. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Now don't take this the wrong way; it's not intended as an insult. I just found the above list rather interesting. If you look at the list as a whole, it would appear that deaf people aren't human. I know that you didn't intend this; but sometimes the unintentional speaks volumes. You might want to revise your list. ~D

---

A deaf person is human but with nonfunctional ears. When I said human, it is given that the ears are functional.

A deaf person is in a forest. A tree falls and make soundwaves. The deaf person's ear can't conver the soundwaves hence there's no sound. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Well ok i'm a little tired of this discussion. If you like it that way...

---

Is the world "round" because you liked it? ~;) Do you have a stomach because you liked it? Which came first, 'hunger' or the stomach? Do you have lungs because you liked 'breathing'? It has nothing to do with liking it.

gah! Sound! Gah! Gah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

i've to say that that song sucks. ~D

---

Hm, I guess it gets alot more radio play where you live. I've only heard it off my CD. I actually like it alot ~:)

DA