unreality

anyone else have favorites or suggestions for other people to check out?

lol. You should've known, octopuppy ;D yeah I was thinking that, too- average of your topics' ratings mixed in with ratings given to you by people on your profile page, thus weighting your own votes. Good idea!

yeah compare these: skoehcd shkoecd

Yeah, like that commercial where the guy does a good thing, and then that person does a good thing, etc, etc, and it comes back to the original person eventually- after all, we can be connected to anyone within 6 links ("6 degrees"), and most people can be connected with 2 or 3 or 4. Like, smiling at someone could save their life if they were depressed, kinda like what octopuppy said about the "critical moment". Know what I mean? A more worldly view of this: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/07/swarms/miller-text From the end of the article: That's the wonderful appeal of swarm intelligence. Whether we're talking about ants, bees, pigeons, or caribou, the ingredients of smart group behavior—decentralized control, response to local cues, simple rules of thumb—add up to a shrewd strategy to cope with complexity. "We don't even know yet what else we can do with this," says Eric Bonabeau, a complexity theorist and the chief scientist at Icosystem Corporation in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "We're not used to solving decentralized problems in a decentralized way. We can't control an emergent phenomenon like traffic by putting stop signs and lights everywhere. But the idea of shaping traffic as a self-organizing system, that's very exciting." Social and political groups have already adopted crude swarm tactics. During mass protests eight years ago in Seattle, anti-globalization activists used mobile communications devices to spread news quickly about police movements, turning an otherwise unruly crowd into a "smart mob" that was able to disperse and re-form like a school of fish. The biggest changes may be on the Internet. Consider the way Google uses group smarts to find what you're looking for. When you type in a search query, Google surveys billions of Web pages on its index servers to identify the most relevant ones. It then ranks them by the number of pages that link to them, counting links as votes (the most popular sites get weighted votes, since they're more likely to be reliable). The pages that receive the most votes are listed first in the search results. In this way, Google says, it "uses the collective intelligence of the Web to determine a page's importance." Wikipedia, a free collaborative encyclopedia, has also proved to be a big success, with millions of articles in more than 200 languages about everything under the sun, each of which can be contributed by anyone or edited by anyone. "It's now possible for huge numbers of people to think together in ways we never imagined a few decades ago," says Thomas Malone of MIT's new Center for Collective Intelligence. "No single person knows everything that's needed to deal with problems we face as a society, such as health care or climate change, but collectively we know far more than we've been able to tap so far." Such thoughts underline an important truth about collective intelligence: Crowds tend to be wise only if individual members act responsibly and make their own decisions. A group won't be smart if its members imitate one another, slavishly follow fads, or wait for someone to tell them what to do. When a group is being intelligent, whether it's made up of ants or attorneys, it relies on its members to do their own part. For those of us who sometimes wonder if it's really worth recycling that extra bottle to lighten our impact on the planet, the bottom line is that our actions matter, even if we don't see how. Think about a honeybee as she walks around inside the hive. If a cold wind hits the hive, she'll shiver to generate heat and, in the process, help to warm the nearby brood. She has no idea that hundreds of workers in other parts of the hive are doing the same thing at the same time to the benefit of the next generation. "A honeybee never sees the big picture any more than you or I do," says Thomas Seeley, the bee expert. "None of us knows what society as a whole needs, but we look around and say, oh, they need someone to volunteer at school, or mow the church lawn, or help in a political campaign." If you're looking for a role model in a world of complexity, you could do worse than to imitate a bee.

the deception lies in the far corner. You can see the one sort of going above the other one. It's not much but it's what leads to the fooling of the eye, at least from what I can tell this is originally an MC Escher thing

Yaeh I've hread aubot tihs aolt, it's rlaley cool!

hehe I'll have to check out the Saturday Night riddles

hey guys I'm just curious... what are everyone's absolute all-time favorite riddles? (You can't say a riddle that you posted- by favorite, I mean "favorite in every way" which includes "favorite to solve", which you can only know if you didn't post that riddle) Mine would have to be roolstar's "Hats on Death Row"

a murderer is not "evil". In fact, there are no such things as "good" and "evil" in the real world. Think about it... the notions do not really exist. Nobody is "evil". Does that make everyone "good" then? It doesn't really matter. There is no absolute morality. We, as animals, do what we want to help ourselves. Even if we are helping someone else with no gain for us, there's still gain for us, because we want to help that person. Every single action we do, we wanted to do that action under the circumstances. You might say "what if someone was holding a gun to your head to hand them something". You want to hand them it, cuz you don't want your brains blown out. Or if an old lady needs help with the groceries, you help her because it makes YOU feel good, it gives YOU satisfaction, because you know you helped someone else. See what I mean? We do everything that we do for our own gain, in a way. We do what we want, considering all the cirumstances at the moment that we know about I agree with absolutely everything octopuppy said in this quote: (probably cuz we think very alike on most subjects)

On a note... most RPs go like stories... like when you actually get everyone's backstories and start it up, it should start from one specific moment and be told like a story (a good story is more entertaining ) Though it's okay to, in the beginning, kind of give a little description like you guys are doing ;D

I agree with what you said btw, Next was a good move... IIRC it starred Nicholas Cage, right?

giterdone PMed me: my reply: okay, though I'm gonna have to drop out. I just don't have time these days, sorry basically start it as a story from your character's perspective- usually it's done in 3rd person, though sometimes (very rarely) 1st person. In your opening post, kind of tell the backstory of your character and what he/she is doing RIGHT NOW! Eventually, most of the characters will meet up (sooner rather than later). The theme I was going for was that the characters we are playing are the ones that are more curious about their world than most others. They have evolved further and are the next step in the AI- possible people that may carry out a "success" (remember, that's when people inside Epsilon reach Epsilon-0, the fabled island where the DEITY System- which is really just the entire computer program- is said to exist). Remember, the people of Epsilon are isolated from each other- they may know that they live on, for example, Epsilon-19, but they aren't curious if there are other "Epsilon islands" or where they might be. No two people have interacted with Epsilonians from another island yet... much of the RP will be about interactions in the world of Epsilon, maybe even hostilities forming between islands, as your people lead your fell Epsilonians to new technologies and islands with your curiosity, your next-level AI... and, as a group, eventually culminating the desire to seek out the mysterious "DEITY system". Or something- it may not go like that at all, cuz remember, it's a collective story told by many people. That's just a central theme- the story can go any which way, as long as you keep it realistic in terms of the world the programmers have created, know what I mean? I'm thinking each character should start out on separate islands, though maybe 2 could be on the same island? Any way is fine- like I said, I can't really take part in this now, though I may come back every once and a while, and then when I get less busy I can take a more active part

Interesting replies. If you are a theist and want to ignore this "paradox", the best way would be to say that God did everything at once- all his interactions with the universe were done, by his perspective, at one moment, affecting different parts in time for us, the inhabitants of that universe. That's the best way to avert this God paradox, IMO, if you believe in God. To me, since I'm an atheist, it seemed pretty unaddressed that someone could see the future caused by him and have free will at the same time, that's why I made this topic

I'm an atheist, but this is just an interesting question for theists and people who believe in god (ie, this should NOT become a religious debate ) Here it is: You say that God can see the past, present and future all at once, like pages in a book. So does that mean God already sees the stuff he will do in the future, or in any time? Does this remove God's free will? Can he not change a decision because he already knows what he's gonna do? Or did he just do everything at once to all the pages in the book at one point in "his time" (greater level than "our time"?)... know what I mean?

exactly my point in my post, I said something along the lines of "wouldn't this clash with your notion of a 'fair' God?" I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. You can't have God be infinitely wise and just, yet condemn people to infinite suffering at the same time. That's why, if I was a theist, I would agree with Duh Puck. The "soul", if such a separate consciousness exists, would not be immortal. It would come into being at birth and cease to exist at death, ie, it would require the body and brain to supply energy to exist or something, so if your "body" dies, so would your "soul" (though if you were religious and still wanted your reward at the end, ie, "heaven", then you could say that your soul goes to heaven afterwards upon certain requirements or whatever)

That's what I was saying... the whole "fiery torture pit" sounds like BS, was essentially what I was saying in that paragraph... glad you agree and the Bible was written by people too, just so you know. There's nothing except priests and popes to say that "God influenced the Bible" and they just get their info from... *drumroll*... the Bible! It's just a flippin book ;D

What if, as the wheels spun, they turned generators to produce electricity that would in turn help power the wheels and rest of the car... you would still need a bit of gas or battery or solar or whatever to start up the engine and the wheel turning motion, and you would have to keep a charged battery because the wheels couldn't go indefinitely, but still... whatever saves a little bit... or is my idea completely off of the rules of motors and generators and motion and electricity and stuff? Cuz I'm sure the car people have thought of every little possible idea

For those that believe in Hell, isn't it a bit hypocritical toward the "forgiveness" of your religion? Or is it okay to not forgive "non-believers" even if they led good lives? Just curious. And do you really think it's a place full of fire and red-skinned horned humanoids poking you with pitchforks? If it does exist, I doubt it- that sounds more of like a metaphor to me. And what evidence do you have that Hell exists other than your holy book? Just curious if anyone has anything that's actually substantial. I can see how people view their holy book, say the Bible, as holy evidence once they've already established that the god of their religion exists, but it can't be used as proof that said deity exists, know what I mean? Also... how does anyone deserve INFINITE suffering for a FINITE crime? What horrible thing can a person do that requires ETERNAL torment? Seriously... think about that. Think about the meaning of ETERNAL! What deed could you possibly do on earth that sanctions that kind of cruelty and injustice? Also, eternal torture would get boring after a while... it wouldn't be much torture after long. This is all hypothetical reasoning of WHAT IFs, just showing more holes in the teachings of most religions. "Heaven" and "Hell" are nothing more than the "Carrot" and the "Stick" to get the "Donkey" to do what you want- it wants the carrot and doesn't want the stick. It's a scare tactic and a bribe. "If you do what we want you to do, you go to Heaven. Otherwise you go to Hell. So be good! Do what we say!" See what I mean?

yeah, I agree- though somewhere in there, before all the "purpose", there has to be something random, something that sparked the beginnings of life... the formation of early cells, ie, rings of nano-organisms that work together, becoming "cells", which then form bodies, working together, becoming "tissue" and "organisms", becoming "communities" and "colonies", etc... that's another thing that led to my idea. The first cells came about as rings of tiny compounds, sort of unconsciously working together for survival- though there is no true definition of consciousness, so that would be the first life, the first consciousness. And it grew from there. I believe that somewhere in the universe, I doubt that it was Earth, life first arose as defined by "compounds working together" and evolving from there. I believe natural selection and evolution are simple, semi-random, blind processes- the concepts themselves are very simple, there is no guiding force needed but that does not directly disqualify your (itachi's) theory... it does not mean that there isn't some destination for life's evolution pattern... but I believe it is a "blind" goal- but a goal nontheless. What theists call "blind" just because their God isn't guiding it does not mean that Nature is not guiding it. So while evolution is "blind" in the terms of theism and that it has no central intelligence guiding it, but happens locally and without guidance, does not mean that it is "blind"... for I believe in Nature, just like Itachi

I would say word it well, kind of flesh out a background story (unless it's a simple word riddle or challenge) and make the story a bit capturing, so that people read the riddle- and don't make the solution too obvious, though you can make it as hard as you please Make sure that the riddle is clear and people can understand it well other than that, there's no real "format" to use

whoa, I did not expect this to turn into a bitter arguement... sorry guys! Duh Puck, I think what Itachi-San is saying is, is that there is evidence for his belief... the entire purpose of life is to reproduce itself, to keep living, to avoid possibly fatal pain, to further the species, to survive, etc. He's saying that this just doesn't happen blindly- therefore life must have a purpose. You agree, but then you say God caused this purpose. He's saying life has created its own purpose. Both of you have no real evidence to support your claims (the Bible is not evidence, as it's clearly 100% biased- it's just a book), though Itachi-san's theory is more likely to me- however it does have some holes, such as: how does life determine its own purpose? Did it have a hand in its own creation? etc. But the holes are less gaping than most religions, I would say I believe there is no purpose to life- and you might argue "but you just said the purpose of life is the continued existence of life", and I did just say that, but I mean that the only way life could still be existing billions of years later is BECAUSE it strives to continue its own existence. I'm sure there were other forms of life long time ago that didn't develop such natural processes, so they died out. It's just natural selection- a blind process where the things that are advantaged to survive will survive. Know what I mean? So I'm not saying that life's goal to reproduce is a coincidence, just the opposite. That form of life is the only form that could've gotten this far. That's why it's like that. So, going back to my OP, the topic was intended for atheists, I guess, now that I see Duh Puck's reaction to it. I was just reflecting on swarm theory and, if you are an atheist, how we might be individuals in a "swarm" such as our planet, or even the universe- I was also connecting it to Itachi's theory about life being superbeings, because colonies, or "super-organisms" or "swarms" are kind of similar. So my theory in my OP would be hard to grasp for a theist, where it may be interesting but irrelevant. I don't have any evidence to back my OP theory up- it's just an idea. What if we are part of something bigger?

or ignore me...

I've been pretty busy lately... not sure when I'll have enough free time to kick it off. If someone else wants to, though, they can send me a PM with what their first post would be and I can talk to them about it and stuff, before we actually post anything here

It was something very specific you said which ticked me off: in other words: "God did it. It's a stupendous engineering marvel." So maybe I read your attitude wrong (hard to, online) but I got the impression that you were implying "it's too complex to happen naturally, therefore God did it", which is what ticked me off obviously, if it is a stupendous engineering marvel, you'd still be curious about it. Stonehenge is an example. So don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to say that you weren't curious But what I meant that was ticking me off was your casting away of any plausible explanation other than "a marvel of Divine Engineering"