Jump to content

shushi_boi

Member+
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About shushi_boi

  • Rank
    Zoanoid

Recent Profile Visitors

564 profile views
  1. Its been a while since I posted but here are my thoughts. As mentioned earlier, there are other manga authors that are still continuing their works like Kentaro Miura, Yoshihiro Togashi, George Morikawa, and others who are famously known for their slow pacing or long hiatus periods. Guyver is no different, it has small periods where all the chapters that we have were done in a small period of time with long idle unproductive time in between. Since Guyver is Takaya's only major work, I believe he's just dragging the series out for reasons that he only knows (could be that that series is his life support for his career/reputation, or other more personal reasons). IMO I think that Takaya will finish the story in 20 years (give or take), and it would be very unlikely that anything would happen to him within that time that would prohibit him from doing so, and as others had previously stated, the series has developed so much, that Takaya will have good control over how he'll end it. With a lot of thought put into its development, Guyver will most likely end well considering the fact that Takaya has had so much time in working on it, plus its his magnum opus, Guyver is literally his life! (This is assuming however Guyver remains supported throughout that time and doesn't get dropped) I honestly love guyver and I've rechecked all of the previous chapters and I feel that the ending will involve some sort of Armageddon, in the since that the creators will arrive and in my opinion either them or their "enemy" will be the main villians and chronos/or guyver one's team will probably be humanities only resistance against them. From seeing how events have turned out, and previous hints, I feel that the story might head that direction (I could be wrong though). It would be interesting though if there was a thread started about important things that have to be answered before the series ends.
  2. Just curious if anyone knows about any technological progresses made so far on hoverboards?
  3. That's a great point Jess, about the existence of pi (Philosophy of Math). Circles I would guess exist because we observe them but they do not exist in the perfect mathematical sense in the Physical world (depends how you see abstract objects, like Plato or Socrates). Physical reality and nature is really dynamic, and there could be an infinite existing in the real world, like Zeno's paradox, but we haven't yet found the infinite to exist, even in math (except in set theory). The fact that circles and pi have limits means that there is a strong possibility for pi to not be an actual infinite but rather a potential infinite, an infinity that never reaches its destination. (Just my views on the infinite and pi, not really important to understand) Even though the infinite has many possibilities, it is not possible for it to do potentially everything. Something that is infinite is by definition infinite by one dimension, so lets say there's a line, that line if it never ends is an infinite point or dimension. Our physical world is made up of space with 3 dimensions that we have discovered so far empirically, and time which is a single dimension. Although our Universe, a bubble within all of reality, is defined by these dimensions, it is not infinitely long, even though it keeps expanding, it still has its limits. Because the Universe keeps on expanding, it will eventually start slowing down its expansion and it will get cooler and theoretically speaking our universe will sort of die (I don't know if I should call this state of the universe death). Even though the universe will keep on expanding, its expansion rate at that point will be decreasing and decreasing, making its infinite expansion a potential infinite. Another infinite that is not irrational or non-existent in math are infinite numbers that sum up to a whole number, or a definable number. This is like 1/3 = .33333... but this only works on set theory as set theory encloses an infinite number, which would result in a rational number or a value that could rationally exist. In this sense pi is not irrational [its sum is arguably infinite but its circumference and diameter are actual numbers] but it would take a long time to describe it in terms of set maths and rules (they start off with different starting points/axioms than in other maths). Even if we are talking about an actual infinite existing, it is only limited to only one dimension but where I believe any possibilities to come true is in the eternal. The eternal has an infinite number of dimensions, of all things which includes space-time, matter-energy, etc. This is what is outside of our universe, the eternal has the properties to actually be the source of everything. Although I love to talk about this, this is really deep waters and I will pull back to your points. You are right that there is this observer effect that makes it close to impossible for us to know whether our measurements in science are 100% compatible with reality (our eyes and physical body capabilities are very limited). This is my belief and it is not any more true or false than yours (this is sort of unprovable). I believe that reality isn't really a contradiction, that it does follow different maths and logic (or rules that sensibly amount to something) like the law of non-contradiction or the law of opposites (both of which depend on the duality and triessence relationship existing in reality). I believe that our minds understand two different realities, one that is the metaphysical and the other one the physical. I don't think that our minds invent the metaphysical because our minds depend on it and not vice versa, I see our minds like the eyes of the physical world to the metaphysical world. I see both worlds true because if both worlds follow laws and do not contradict, then however one defines physical reality to be, by definition it would also prove the reality of the metaphysical world [plus we experience it like we experience the physical world]. We can understand some truths, but I also believe that because we are not eternal beings, we cannot comprehend all of reality completely. The logics that we humans are capable of ever possessing is limited due to the limitation of our brains, so if we try to describe physical reality in terms of our limited logics (example newtonian/classical physics) then it is impossible for us to simulate or understand it, but I still believe that there are maths and sensible laws that the universe and all of reality follows, and my only clue to this idea is that our current logics map outs some aspects of reality to a close agreement. So we sort of agree and disagree similarly in this vast topic about existentialism, but I apologize if my continuation of this topic is effecting you negatively, we have reached points where it is impossible to know what ideas are true or not, but I honestly believe that at this point it doesn't matter because it all goes back to us knowing that we exist that proves that we exist, just by thinking, you are in a state of being in the metaphysical sense. Experience is our best tool to help us live our lives and survive, and no one can completely discredit your experience because in the end we are somewhat agnostics and we will continue to be agnostics as long as we exist, so our focus in life should be on what matters most to us individually.
  4. That is fine I hope that your day went well! I am really glad that you shared your thoughts and helped me with my question, I actually learned a lot more from your help than that from a lot of philosophers that I talk to. I apologized for adding to your work, (I threw a lot of information and it's difficult to follow all of the stuff that I say sometimes, not because its difficult but because of all the information that is there ) because I know that aside from real life obligations you have this entire site to run, but at the same time I am very thankful for your interest! I am very satisfied with what I've learned and the results of this conversation. Aside from helping me with this question, I also learned about how exceptional this community really is. I was not expecting to have a dialogue with a phd philosopher but I am still blown away by it. I know I made my fare share of mistakes such as with my ontology/existence and logic, I am not all that smart just that I studied this and I need to study more philosophy. I hope that I was able to bring out an interesting topic and hopefully make these forums more dynamic and entertaining (although there are people who hate heavy philosophical stuff, and I don't blame them ) Anyways if you feel like this is a good ending point for this topic I am fine by that because I'm more satisfied than what I wanted to be. If you still want to ask any questions or you want to test out new ideas, I'm all ears (most of the time lol). Anyways thank you for all that you've done and I am grateful for sharing your time and energy in my question!
  5. This duality and triessence is not only in us human, but also in everyday life or in the most fundamental aspects that I learned about reality. Now, this part might be a little tricky (I divided my response in 2, because they are different) but I think it would be a good idea if I presented this part now and then afterwards you give me your insight and I might respond accordingly. I did say that based on all of the information we know, we know more about ourselves and we know we are real as opposed to the outside world, nature. So there is this duality, the outside world and the inside world, us and the external world. We see the external world and we affect the external world and the external world affects us, so there has to be this connecting force to allow this relationship. On my previous posts I claimed that I am a realists --> I believe that maths are real in the external world by necessity (interesting book “Mathematical Truth,†by Paul Benacerraf) --> Naturalistic/verificatinists/empiricist views are not able to disprove the reality of maths in the external world without having to disprove their own views and what they consider to be the source of truths (only science) --> Therefore, an aspect of our own consciousness, logic and math is part of that outside reality (whether you believe that your own inner world is true or the exterior world is real, maths is real in both worlds and it never contradicts itself too). If this is true then it follows that the other aspect of our consciousness, the emotional/artistic/compassionate are part of the external reality and not just human inventions. For example, many aspects of art follow patterns or meaningful combinations and this is reflected on nature, on the otherhand, maths and logic are reflected in the laws of nature. In summary of this point, the metaphysical world, our mind and the physical world, the outside world share many things and the fact that we interact with that world, and one aspect of our consciousness (logical aspect) is reflected in the outside reality, then we know that our other half, the emotional aspect has to be real as well in the outside world. One thing that I would like to add on is what I mean about what is real. Real in the inner world is something that is experienced, on the otherhand what is real in the outside world is a little more complicated to define because many people start off differently and they have different criteria on what is real for them. Reality is the world that is real regardless of what one believes or not, and one could say that what we experience in our inner world is therefore not part of reality, but on the contrary, the things we experience is not based on how we choose to feel about those experiences but rather we experience similar things that others experience in similar situations, which adds objectivity to the reality of our experiences (example, someone dies and most people feel the same feelings about that death, or the opposite [which could be debated to be related through duality]). So in short, there is this duality of the innerworld (our minds) and the exteriorworld. I haven't yet completely defined the triessence force between them, because this would also include reality and we are all still in search of reality. If we are not able to have enough information to understand ourselves completely (how our consciousness works, whether we have a soul or not, do we have an aspect of god?) or nature (how quantum mechanics works, a theory of everything, what is beyond the physical universe, what was before the big bang, etc.) then we can't really build the connecting force of everything, the triessence of the reality of ourselves and the external world.
  6. I understand, we all work differently, not that one is smarter than the other or anything like that, sometimes our minds are geared differently and we all have our specialties but you did understand me for the most part Well in my response, I expanded on the idea of duality, that in nature and the fundamental areas of nature, duality is there like energy and matter are the same thing, but everything that is material in our universe are different shades of energy and matter. But there is a reason why black and white are related, matter and energy, 0 and 1, being and non-being and so on. What relates them is the 3rd element, but the third element has properties of the two other things, its not really its own thing, like grey has properties of black and white. Without this third element, then nothing would have any significance, nothing would be real, the world would be one of non-duality (because there would be no difference between car and white, right and wrong). So I believe that there are two fundamental truths that I see in reality and they are 1. Duality and 2. Triessence. These are the axioms to me about how the outer world functions. About I am, I know more about myself and my own existence more than what I know about the outer world. About the main title of this post, all of us are emotional and logical. On the one hand we all have a personhood that is emotional, compassionate, artistic, warm, and we are able to feel these things in nature and towards others (either in good or bad ways). On the other hand we have another being in our personhood, the logical aspect, the one that's similar to a computer, but not really a computer, we are able to use computational maths/logic, or other types of logic, we can perform metacognition (think outside the box), we can understand philosophy and science of things and so on. This duality shows aspects of what we are as humans, but we are not these two different things. Being human, is to be the shade of those two parts of our consciousness (some are more scientific than others or others are more artistic than others), we are the result of those two being related, the triessence of them that makes us human and our consciouness, and it is because of these elements that we are able to experience free will, the ability to make choices and think about them independent from our upbringing/nurture and environment/nature. Also for me, duality does not necessarily mean the relationship of complete opposites but rather the relationship of two different things, like for example there's the duality of logical and illogical, emotions and logic and so fourth.
  7. So I am still sort of new to these forums and I was never really a member of forums, I just liked visiting them. Well I did a piece a while back and I haven't worked on it. Its about some of my favorite animes themed with anti-heros, well except shinobi because that's a video game, but it did have a comic book at one point. Here's the list of those anime/game (If you guys haven't checked them out, their pretty good); Berserk, Devilman, Guyver, and Shinobi (the Arcade and PS2 game series). These are the references if you guys happened to be curious Well about the pic, aside from the theme being my favorite action/anti-hero series, there are actually elements in all of them that could make it really likely for a cross over to happen (mostly being about supernatural beings wanting to invade the world, and somehow they are part of humanities nature/origins). Nothing else to say but that I just wanted to post this pic here so that it doesn't get lost when I reboot my system and it deals with Guyver too. I plan on to continue my work on it and leave the finishing touches to a friend of mine that's an expert artist, so far I only have the outline done (and I need to work on some of the proportions as well. Honestly I am very busy so most likely you guys wont hear me updating this often, but when I get the chance I will definately try to finish this one up. I actually plan to continue this project where I make more cross over pics as all of their stories progresses as I find out more about their new abilities, this is just a scene where they all happen to bump into each other in this different dimension of Japan, but they have no choice but to work together and figure out what's going on.
  8. Thank you Jess for sharing your philosophy and perspective :^) I apologize for the confusing read. So I guess you're view is a heavy dualistic one, and that is that there are two degrees of the same thing, for example if there is good, evil is implied to exist, or if there is a state to be, then there is a state of non-being (black and white view). Even if there is some grey, that grey is always either more white or more black. Something about that grey though, I share a similar view like you Jess and that is that in philosophy, whenever you have two related things, you always need something to connect them. For example the early greeks believed that there were 4 elements that made up reality and they were water, earth, fire, and air; Long ago, the four nations lived together in harmony. Then everything changed when the Fire Nation atta... Oh wait, this doesn't belong here Well the greeks believed that there was another element that connected them all and this is what is reffered to as quintessence. This is similar to the theory of everything that many physicists are looking for, something to connect all of reality, like Einstein and his E=mc^2 where matter and energy were shown to be one of the same (like black and white) and the speed of light (or mass' velocity) is their grey. So going back to dualism, I believe that (in my view) that there's a third element to connect the black and white, the degree of both of them which I call the triessence, or grey. Grey by nature is not and independent element, but rather it still is either more black or more white depending on its shade. So to me personally, the universal numbers are 1 and 0, and another one [0.999, 0.998, .... 0.002, 0.001] which is like the grey, something that bridges the two. This is like saying that yes and no are related to each other, its because of an element that connects them, this is why yes and car aren't related or why no and exercise aren't related. I ultimately believe that there is some connecting force with all things that exists, because I have found some maths to accurately describe things and they must be related somehow. This is just an assumption of mine. I agree that statistics suck, I don't like them because people often think that outcomes are completely statistical. For example, when I was in high school there was a substitute teacher that said that he was attacked by a shark once when he went surfing. Many students asked him why he still continues to surf and he replied, "because I just beat the odds". Technically speaking he said that shark attacks only occur once to surfers in their lifetimes, and that the chances of them being attacked again are non-existent. He even says that he goes to the same spot where he got attacked, because of his confidence in statistics. Statistics is not this invisible force that changes when you either get attacked by sharks or when lightning strikes you, I mean if you put yourself in the same situation and you believe that lightning never strikes at the same place, and you stand in the same place during a thunder storm, then you are putting yourself at risk by putting yourself in that situation. So in that sense statistics does not represent reality and it gives a false interpretation about reality. About quantum physics, I studied it and I know what you are talking about (I've heard this from many quantum physicists who try to make their own philosophy; interestingly enough Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose have stated that they believe that consciousness is like a quantum computer and the essence of consciousness is quantum mechanics). Well this is my view and the view of some of the quantum physicists who had proposed it. The effect that an observer somehow manipulates the quantum effect is associated with the schrodinger's cat or superposition/supersymmetry effect. It was actually the principle of uncertainty by heisenberg that describes that we don't currently know why that effect happens or how to describe it mathematically. Since Heisenberg didn't know how to map the effect exactly he used another model that has the observer effecting the results which is just like a bandage until we find out what is actually going on. The reason why is because science relies on computational mathematics and the quantum effect is beyond that, there are different maths that exists as demonstrated in the Goodstein's theorem, so there could be different maths that could accuretly describe quantum mechanics and help bridge quantum mechanics with the general theory of relativity (This is what physicists call their future theory, the quantum theory of relativity). Ultimately this is just an assumption of mine but everything that I see, measure, for the most part has a mathematical statement for it, for example we see natural events happening, those are phenamena, then if you start with the law of non-contradiction and that somehow all things are related then you could use some very basic and true axioms of mathematics that seem to accurately model the effect, and this relationship between maths and phenomena is known as the law. You are right though that all thoeries need to have uncertain values, or accuracy values that are + or - something. But at the same time, most models and laws are really accurate where the mathematical results are very close to actual measurements, quantum electro-dynamics (QED) for example in its aluminum ion clock experiments shows differences between actual measurements and predicted theoritical values to be different from 10^-16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. Very small differences between mathematical formulas and actual measurements. Even though the accuracy we have today is really great, there is still these small gaps of knowledge, where .00000000000000001 is not the same thing as zero. This is described in the theory of Incompleteness by Kurt Gödel. You can read a more detailed response to this here; well in summary, ourselves and maths/logic seem to be the only things that we can trust to be true, even though we are not completely logical (we have emotions, and other qualties that makes us humans and not objective beings like computers that are error free). But the reason why it is valid to say that even though we are not completely logical and yet we can come up with maths is either 2 options; (1) Maths was never invented and it's source is from something else, we just discover it (2) even though human beings have elements of error in them, human consciousness trancends maths and logic, we can think outside the box in a simple sense. So even though mathematical models don't prove that reality is mathematically possible to understand, we find other qualities in reality that goes back to human beings seeing art through the telescope for some scientists, or others finding moral obligations to other humans or species. I believe that we can understand reality but I don't have proof of that at the moment. But I think I always say a lot and I apologize for it if I sound confusing
  9. Thank you Jess for the great question! Before I address your question, I thought that it would be a good idea if I expand further on the relevance of my question and a question that I had recieved from others. It's true that this question seems random from the blue, and that I didn't really show how values (like emotions, aethetics and ethics) are exclusive from logic, maths and other abstract entities in terms of whether they are human inventions or not. I will follow this up with the response that I give along with further explanation "Well if you accept platonic objects to be real, you accept that maths, and other abstract truths are part of reality (or something close to that nature like realism; opposite of that would be verificationism, naturalism or emperiicism) so it really boils down to where you start. I'm starting from the realists' position, and "truth value" in a sense is part of reality, or an aspect of reality. It is because that logic from this point of view that helps describe reality is not separate from reality but rather a part of it. Emotional value plays a role in it as well as aesthetic value, ethic values and so on. They are exclusive, although they play different roles in arguments, Pathos and Logos are separate but both are still used in arguments as I outlined. Both emotions and logic play a role in helping to describe reality, they are a lens for describing something that exists in more detail. Some people now a days dismiss emotional arguments because they don't stem from a logically attainable framework, you just feel them like aesthetics and ethics, in that sense they are objective (most people agree on these values on similar things). Please tell me how they arent exclusive? Logic in a realist or platonic sense is real, and that's why it goes hand in hand with science and other empirical approaches to describing reality. Emotions and other values that we experience don't have the same weight, yet they help us interpret reality, so in order for us to decipher if emotional arguments are valid we must ask, are qualities like emotions even real in the same sense as logic and maths? If you read “Mathematical Truth,†by Paul Benacerraf, you will see that mathematics has to be true in the same sense that scientific truths are real, if not then the scientific truths that we know of aren't real. So in short, if logic and maths are real, if you adopt the views that I presented, then values like purpose, meaning, art, emotions have to be real, and if you haven't yet realized it by now, this is the universally debated question on if meaning and human purpose exists, this is just part of the jigsaw puzzle, first we have to see if these values are objective and real, because if they are then human purpose exists. If they aren't real, then people can say that they are just inventions of the mind (like science ironically in their view)" So the interest of this question boils down to human value existing, if not then should we be nihilists? Well I know I glossed over many details, but I tried to connect the logic in the points I made. And as Jess has stated, first the external has to be proven to be true. If our cognitive faculties are reliable and are senses as well,, we all could still be tricked, in the sense that everything that we experience is false, we could be in a dream right now, and we are really moths dreaming that we are people or we could just be brains in some ghost VATS machine experiencing a false reality, like the matrix). So far from what we know, our own existence is the only, most realiable fact that we can reasonably conclude because we could think so. From my study of physics, there are many phenomena in our material universe that are invisible to all senses, some being particles, or even dark energy, and we only know them through scientific models and logical formulation (not yet empirically proven). This is why I am a realist, even though there are some material things that aren't measurable, their truth value for me are ultimately less than that of my emotional values, ethical values, the maths that I use or even my own existence. Many people today assume so much things, they are empiricists, materialists, verificationists, and yet they have more grounds from their own knowledge that abstract truths like their own existence, the existence of their minds, and so fourth are more real than the scientific models they hold. Most of the problem stems from the lack of knowledge of the difference between science and philosophy, and their purpose. So the conclusion that I would draw at is that many abstract truths we are able to somehow pick up on them, sense them as oppose to just assume an invention. I am glad for the question Jess because most of the time, many people take for granted the most fundamental knowledge they hold (which is the foundation for most of their beliefs) to somehow not be real, but everything that they sense, everything that is physical, everything that they can grasp ultimately is not entirely understood, yet they hold such knowledge in higher regards than the most foundational truths that are abstract in nature, unlike the physical reality seen around them. If one in this scenario was to deny human purpose, and value (some of which stem from emotion, aethetics, ethics, etc.) but accept everything exterior to them, then they ultimately subscribe to a philosophy that is inconsistent where truth value doesn't even exists, everything around them is indifferent, and that even their own words aren't real. I know I stated alot but I'll stop right here for now.
  10. I'm new to these forums and I started to study philosophy recently and I got really interested in it (although I'm a system's engineer major, I'm getting really hooked on philosophy, don't know why many of my colleagues don't know what philosophy is or why they hate to talk about it?) Anyways this is a major question that I've always had and maybe I'm not using the proper philosophical jargon to ask it accurately (I apologize ahead of time). I aknowledge that this is the guyver forum and I may not get higly academic responses, but I'm interested in hearing the opinions of members from this forum, and their philosophy. I'm interested in hearing a debate between two different philosophers, one who debates that logic, maths and scientific facts are real and somehow refutes another philosopher that claims that emotions, meaning, morality, art, aesthetics, etc. aren't just useful fictions but part of reality. Are there any resources online that discusses this (I tried searching but I haven't found anything yet). To me, this would sound like an interesting debate, which would probably focus on experiences, and a debate on the definition of what is reality exactly. If there aren't any resources that significantly cover this, what are your guy's opinion on this? Background to this question My opinion is that abstract objects (similar in nature to those of platonic objects) must exist, such as maths, logic, and so fourth. I've read extensively on why maths have to be real and why verificationism (or a naturalistic view on reality) fails to address why these abstract entities are false. I'm at the point where I have accepted that I exist (descartes convinced me), why science falls under philosophy (the scientific method was formulated through philosophical logical reasoning). Basically almost everything that doesn't deal with just facts, laws and data, where such information is arranged into something meaningful is actually in the realms of philosophy, this is the reason why the highest academic distinction in almost any field requires one to master the philosophy of it (a Ph.D). Ultimately I have concluded that some axioms (not what they describe, but the metaphysical vehicles themselves), metaphysical truths, abstracts/intelligible entities, have to be real by necessity, and some maths, logic, and my own existence (my mind -- logical aspect) being a few of them (This is not to say that emotion are not metaphysical, they are, like logic, but if logic is proven true, how about emotional, ethical, and other values?). If that's the case, what about emotions, art, morality, and other meanings, are they real too? Although Pathos is different in nature than Logos, it would be difficult to prove meaning and emotion in terms of logic. Meaning arises inherently, you can't use logic alone to describe what is already there from literally nothing, so emotion, and feeling play a role in filtering one's perspective in grasping what is and acknowledging its existence. Are there any good arguments for these things? Or do all philosophers accept them to be useful fictions, human inventions, or results of psychological phenomena like our legal system, economics, language, or the virtual web?
×
×
  • Create New...