Youngtusk

I don't see the connection between Peace and War. What is it that leads you to believe that you cannot have one without the other? You can achieve peace without war, and vice versa. Spike Iran's water supply with methylenedioxymethamphetamine and I guarenteee you they won't be wanting to fight anybody. War and Peace are not two sides of the same coin; they are seperate and different concepts. It just so happens that they work against each other. Think Matter and Anti-Matter. Its impossible to have both at the same time because they cancel eachother out; they contradict each other. War and PEace are the same way. They can't exist at the same time, because they're simply two very distinct things that contradict eachother. It doesn't make sense to me then, to say that you can't have one without the other, because you cannot have one if you DO have the other.

Sorry for the late reply, but I jsut saw you're peaked interest in Determinism. Basically, Determinism is a view in the good-old arguement for free will. Do humans have free will or are we limited/handicapped in the decision making processes of our actions? Consider this, its widely accepted that the events of our past shape the present moment. For example, i'm making plans with my friend because last week she wanted to hang out but we were both too busy. By the same logic, the events of the future(the events of tomorrow) are going to take place because of whats happening right now. So, i'm going to see Iron Man with my friend on Thursday because I'm making plans with her right now. She wanted to hang out last week. I'm making plans with her now. We will see a movie on Thursday. Past -> Present -> Future. Well, if the Past shapes the Present and the Present shapes the Future, then essentially the Past shapes the Future. So, I didn't make plans with her because I choose to, but rather i'm going to see Iron Man with her because she wanted to hang out last week. It had nothing to do with my will, but more to do with how the past shaped me. Determinism basically says that we have no free will, and that our choices are not free, but they are influenced and shaped by the past. It makes sense if you think about it; why do you take side streets home from work? Because you know based on past experiences that you'll get stuck in traffic if you take the freeway. You didn't choose to take side streets, but you were determined to. It fits well with the idea of human nature being based on Instinct and Experience. All of our decisions are based on what our Intuition tells us(Instinct) and what our Logic leads to(Experience). We don't make our decisions, but rather, our decisions make us. Relative Physics supports Determinism, because according to Relative Physics, if you know every variable of any given equation and you know every constant, you will know exactly what the outcome/answer is. Similarly, if you know everything that a person has been through to shape who they are(variables), and you know what conditions they will be put under(constant) then you'd be able to tell how they would react to any given situation. My friend tryed to disprove this to me by spontaneously punching me while we were drunk. He thought he'd comitted an act of free will by acting 'randomly.' But I just laughed at him as I clenched my nose and pointed out to him the fact that the only reason he'd punched me was to prove me wrong. And therefore, he wasn't acting out of free will, but rather a drive to disprove determinsim. So, he didn't choose to attempt to disprove me, he didnt choose to punch me, he was determined to prove me wrong, and so he was forced to punch me. And thus the arguement prevails. Okay, I can elaborate, but thats enough for now.

Perfect sense! Thanks for the explanation; that film analogy actually works quite well(for me at least). Well i'm taking Calculus right now for my CS requirements, so if you think you can explain it better mathematically you can give it a shot if you want. I might be able to keep up with some of it. But as it is it makes more sense, especially considering the definiton of time; the movement of objects in space. Without space to move, you have no time to pass, and without time to pass, all you have are objects that don't interact. Right? So let me see if I understand it. I remeber in an episode of Stargate SG-1 there was a team stranded on a planet near a black hole, and time was moving extremely slow for them--infact several minutes on Earth was only a second for them. This makes sense to me now, because the closer you are to a black hole, the more gravity will affect you(speed you up). And the faster you go, the slower time will pass relative to something outside the gravity's reach. So, the closer you get to a black hole, the faster you move, and thus the slower time passes?

Very true, and if it is indeed for the right reason, then I would call that Progress, because even though brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and friends are dieing, its potentially for the betterment of civilization. It doesn't make War right, good, or fair, but perhapes it makes war and all the souls lost justified. But it better be a damn good reason. One concern I have about cyber-technology in War is liability. If we start fighting all our enemys with robots and unmanned remote vehicles, then no one will be held liable for the destruction caused by war. If the threat of young soldiers dieing is replaced with robotic warriors, I think it might fuel a war-mungering political position. War will become the biggest machine blowing up the other machines, like a game played by giddy children.

Those are two different points; i'm saying that peace and war are don't need the other to exist. Perhapes to be appreciated, but not to be. What does that have to do with keeping a Government in check? I never said Progress is Peace, or involves peace. Indeed, war may have to be declared for Progress, i.e. the ends justifying the means. I don't understand what you're gettin at.

I was watching an Episode of the Universe the other night, it was about Gravity. They were talking about the space-time continum, and how space and time are one in the same, essentially. How does that work, exactly? They said something about the natural attraction of matter would cause objects to directly collide with each other, but the distortions matter causes in space creates a more dynamic and almost ocean-like(as in wavey) enviornment. The part I missed was when they tied time into it, like this action somehow distorted the movment of time, and thus space-time was concieved of. Anyway, I was wondering if someone could explain why space and time are considered the same? I mean, it makes sense; whenever I call someone to meet up with them I name a time and a place, but nonetheless could someone shed light?

You can have peace without having war. I don't buy into that whole "What good is good without evil" arguement. There is no objective "good" or "evil" that form a ying-yang power in the world. There is only Progress and Regress. One of my favorite books is "Devil on the Cross" by Ngugi wa Thiong'o. Its a very very good novel about Kenya and social progress. But there is one quote in particular that I love; Its true that leaders always seem to fall into the trap of power-mungering, but allowing them to become corrupt is the fault of the people. Running a country effectivly requires well-informed and participative citizens. The governmnet needs the threat of riots, they need the threat of strikes. They need to be shown that we are the people, and that we have the power, and that we are the ones who run things, and that the government is there to serve us. Afterall, Government was made by man, not God, so it logically follows that governements are made to serve the people. Otherwise it seems sort of ass-backwards to create something that doesn't serve us, eh? Just like V said, Governements should be afraid of its people.

I like to think of myself as a man of pragmatism. However, i think in many cases regarding a society, ethics and practicality aren't usually on the same side of an arguement. A practical solution to crime is capital punishment. If you commit a mildly severe crime, you will get lined up with the other garbage of our prestine culture and gunned down by anonymous gunmen; the gunmen would be like a jury, it would be the citizen's duties to partake. That would be a very effectrive crime deterrent, but its immoral to many. Now, I agree with you that pragmatism rocks, but where, my friend, do we draw the line between being practical machines of productivity and progress, and ethical humans of compassion and hatred? Perhapes thats too broad of a question, but it sums up my thoughts pretty well. Anyway, I agree that ultiamtly peace and love is our objective in terms of social relations. But a world governed by sympathy and compassion is just too good a thing for me to really give much thought to. All we can do is grow up, pay our taxes, and try to give our two cents to human progress, and hope to all hope that our contributions won't go to waste, and that the human race will survive and live on to whatever future it holds.

Well im no creationist, but I admit that it could be tough to sell to someone that we evolved from a few chains of proteins into these complex machines just from drift, chance, and random genetic mutations that just happened to be beneficial once in a while depending on the enviornment. So many factors can make the odds seem kind of warped. Seeing as how complicated and intricate our bodies are, all the different systems working together, I could see how evolution may seem sketchy.

I've recently spent some time up in Northern California, which has seemingly become a refuge for ex-hippies and a sanctuary for students who didn't take their lives seriously, usually a victim of one too many doses of LSD. I spent several hours amongst them, in their smoking circles in the grass meadows surrounded with rich red woods, just west of the UC Santa Cruz campus. Most of the things they talked about were meaningless, reminents of false revelations from their last acid trip. What stuck with me the most was this illusion they had that everything could be solved with love. Now don't get me wrong, i'm not so pessimistic to think that love is pointless or unreal. It is real, but their words left me unsettled. As I sat with them, I came upon my own analyzations, and now wish to see waht you all think of them. I think that those who preach Love and Peace, for all their empathy have not compassion. When I say compassion, i'm referring to the ability to sympathize, to try as hard as you can to objectivly see things from others point of view. I think this is an important skill, because I feel that it opens up new ways of viewing things and also being able to critically analyze them from different persepctives as well. This is important, because based on my experiences, in order to find one self, they must be equipped with the ideas of others. They must be taught how to analyze themselves by learning how to analyze others. This was true for me; I had plenty of introspective oppurtunities in which I could have figured out who I was, what I believed, and what I was doing here. But I didn't know how! That was a while ago, but moving on. I feel that those who preach the free-love lifestly know not the mechanics of the world. It is easy to spit pieties when you don't have to see the cash-crop workers in Guatemala. Its easy to preach peace when you've never been in war. Its easy to value love when you aren't the one who has to delegate underpaid and overworked miners. But we need those crops, and those minerals. Someone has to do the dirty work, because love won't. Theres a better way to do it, but I don't think simple solutions of peace and love will solve these complex issues. I feel that those who preach the free-love lifestyle preach it because it is easier to love then it is to criticize. It makes them look high-minded when really they're lazy. To love unconditionally is to dismiss the critical issues that are real. One cannot love and tell another that they have to work, because even if everyone loved eachother, that work still has to be done in order for our civilizations to survive. So why do they do this? I think its because its easier for most People to feel love than it is to think hard. I know first hand that thinking can be uncomforting, it can arouse feelings of angst and uncertainty. They'd much rather replace these thoughts by bleeding their empathy. Instead of solving these complex problems, they just preach their love and peace and think that they've contributed their part. Thats the bit that bothers me, is that they think its working. Anyway, thats all.

It is interesting indeed. A movie you might like to watch is "What the bleep Do We Know?" Its all about how spirituality has been reinvigorated by the possibilitys of Quantum Physics. It was very unscientific, but it was entertaining. I myself as an existentialist believe in existence precedes essence, that is, we were created before the thought of us was created. I'm also kind of a determinist, so Relative physics works with my philosophys, meanwhile Quantum Physics seems to dissmiss them; many People would love to know that Determinism is false, including me. Basicly I don't want to be dissapointed, so i'm expecting the worst(determinism) and hoping for the best(quantum physics).

Well i'm jsut in College Algebra right now, so I don't think that I could keep up with the details/devil. Quantum Gravity, is that the same thing as Gravitons? A particle of gravity er something?? And what exactly qualifies as an observer? For example, was the universe all crazy and chaotic until the first interactive life form was created, in which case things began to calm down because the universe knew it was being 'watched'? Does that make any sense? I don't know exactly what i'm trying to say... But if particles act like waves only on a subatomic level, then how can quantum physics be practical when we all deal with things bigger than atoms? Because it would only produce chaos on a field of reality too small to affect us, right?

Now, why did he go Exceed mode just to use this ability? If using this attack requires him to go Godzilla status, then that to me suggests that everything, but namely the Gravity Control Orbs, grow and operate proportionatly and thus giving him the energy he needed for he attack that regular sized Gravity Orbs couldn't grant him. I remember a debate about this on the old forums, does this new attack shed light on the subject? Also, my friend was wondering; do you think that the Gravity Implosion is more powerful than the Giga Smasher or is it just a different weapon with its own niche? And lastly, if the shoulder mounts do infact manipualte gravitational energy, is it theoretically possible that he could use them to create a gravity bubble that bends light around him instead of a protective barrier? I know he's never been shown using that power, but is it possible? Cause an invisible Gigantic would be AWESOME!!! Cheers!

Yeah, that was only a hypathetical example. But indeed, it was a huge controversy about how much they f-ed up in raising these kids to think they were better than they were. It wasn't jsut parents, though, it was teachers and coachs; it was a huge campaign to raise self-esteem and it failed. BUt you live you learn. I don't blame the dogs for attacking their owners; its no different from a child, it will act relative to how it was raised. Incompetent parents leads to children who become criminals; incompetent owners leads to dog attacks. And yes, the our world is still dangerous, but I think I prefer it that way. I love the lyric from that one Smash Mouth song, "My world's on fire, how 'bout yours? Thats the way I like it and i'll get bored." And America has become a lot safer in the past twenty or so years, Kidnappings are at an all time low. Its made out to be a worse place than it actually is. Society may be f-ed up, but what are we gonna do? We either live in it and deal with it or go live in the woods like some transcendentalist(i mean no offense to believers of transcendentalism). And besides, if it weren't for all those other zombies of society, I wouldn't feel special for thinking differently. My point was, life doesn't suck. We have it easy compared to those who lived in say the Dark Ages or during the Crusades. Still, People can b*tch about anything, and its those peeps who need wake up calls. Then again, I think it would be an act of pure evil to put other People through existential angst. Its not good for the soul.

Thats a good point since we know that the Guyver assimilates DNA on initial blending. And if it was generated based off of the host's DNA library, then that would mean it wouldn't be rejected since it's of the same genetic code as that of the host; and its its body would recognize it as 'friendly,' yes?

So they channeled the gravitational energy or did they stabilize it so that Sho didn't get sucked in? Or both??

Can anyone give me a quick crash course in the debate between Relative Physics and Quantum Physics? Cause as i've understood Relativity works really well on big things like Cars, Airplanes, Stars, and Black Holes. But then quantum physics works really well with particles and subatomic particles. But how can they both work when they contradict each other?

I don't think that self-esteem is the issue. I recall reading an article about self-esteem in my English class. It was beleived that if you could make kids think good about themselves, i.e. raise their self-esteem, then it would motivate them to do better things. It turned out that that was not the case. For example, if a kid got an F on a science test, he'd blame the teacher or test before himself because his parents were always telling him how smart and good he was. Although i agree that it has to do with people's upbringing. The way one's raised does have direct influence on the way they live their lives. And I don't think that what People feel for those celebrities is hatred; its more like a lack of compassion. When People watch Lindsay Lohan get hauled off to jail on TV< its like they think they're watching the circus. But its real people. IT goes back to my original point; People are insanely disconnected with reality, especially here in the U.S. But it seems to me like they'd rather gossip about Paris Hilton rather than face the complex issues of Iran or illegal immigration. They excited about these politicians, promising change and promisising to fix everything. But then once they're elected they stop caring, like they've done their part in changing society, and now they're handing the torch off to the Pres. Oi vey. Anyway thats enough ranting. Our society may be twisted, but it has its up points for sure. For example, at least we don't have to worry about being trampled by a Mastadon like our ancestors, or worry about our pets/us being attacks be aggressive Funnel Web Spiders like the folk in Australia. We don't need to worry about being ambushed by bandits on dirt roads like in the colonial days. Lets be frank here, we've got it pretty good.

Of course God cannot be disproved, but then again neither can Unicorns, or Merlin, hell, even Guyvers can't be disproven if you truly believe that. I don't believe in GOd in any religious or spiritual sense. But I honestly do wish there was a god watching us, just so I could curse into the sky and shake my fist, knowing that the almighty would percieve my angst. But I don't even get that! My Prayers, curses, and hopes go unanswered into the stars. So I say, if theres a god or not, it doesn't matter to me at this moment; i'd live my life the way I want. And if god don't like it, let him hit me with a divine strike.

Zeo, i have a question about the Gravity Chest Spike, and didn't feel like starting a new thread. Wtf happened in book 25 with the Chest Spike and Shoulder spikes? My friend and I thought it looked like the three spikes somehow acted as conductors, and the attack itself was gravity-based. I don't know if you know any Japanese, but I don't know a lick of it, so just wondering if you could shed some light on that.

Both sides have legitimate points, and from an objective point of view, I wouldn't be able to tell you which sounds more viable. I got a question; the telepathy growths, they are apart of the host's body. Which tells me that they need the host's body to supply them with nutrients to survive. And if they were damaged, the host body would need some sort of blueprint of how to regrow tissue to the Telepahy growths, right? The telepathy growths themselves could have their own set of DNA for regeneration and what not, but i'd think the host body would also need some direction as to what to do with the growths. Would there be anyway for the Guyver to install those without altering the host's DNA?

I wouldn't be supprised if we make use of either stem cells or nano-bots within our natural life time. After that, our life times are theoretically as long as we want them to be. If we can use stem cells to reconstruct nerves and brain cells, and use nanobots to administer them, we've got it made in terms of potential. Then we'll see singularity in our life time

True, science is based on a materialistic philosophy, but the scientific method itself plays as a shield from Philosopher's twisty logic. Basicly, its a fact as long as it works(and as long as we know why it works and that it will work again if tested), and as you can tell from using your computer to connect and log into cyberspace to chat with others around the world; it all works pretty damn well. As far as i'm concerned, Science has done a lot more for human progress in the past few hundred years than religion has, so I invest my stock in science. "If we don't play God, who will?" -Dr. James D. Watson, Molecular Biologist

I cannot disagree with you more. For one; the only reason People like Paris Hilton get some much publicity is because People love to see the titans fall. They like to see celebrities suffer through things that normal People have to suffer through. I don't know how much ya'll invest in Psychology, but it probably has something to do with envy of their social status. And secondly; what I hate even more about those like Lindsay Lohan and the such is that they're a distraction. Theres a saying that goes, "The Romans had bread and circus; we have welfare and football." The Roman Empire hosted free gladiatorial Games and tossed out free bread in order to win over the People and keep them from thinking about the social and political problems of their civilization. Our goverments would love nothing more than for Paris to be all over the media, because that means that they aren't in the spotlight themselves. However, I agree People should bond, they should just do it in a different way, such as talking about their common interests rather than the media's clown of the week. Talk about furture aspirations and tell funny stories, etc.

Youngtusk Just liek that. Recently i've been addicted to CoD 4 but sometiems im on Halo 3 once in a while