Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Pugnacious Peach Pugilistic Punchout

Claire Crimson Cheek Continuation

Marten Mainly Mumbles Methodiclly

Steve Swallows Serially

Battling Bianchi Battlezone

Tai Terrorizes Tall Twin

Jeph Jacques Japes

Waffling Waffles Wander Wonderingly

Butts

[ankhtahr]

Hehe:


Now I feel in the mood for some Philosophy. I still want to read some of Bertrand Russel's works. He's one of the people I'd consider my idol.

[KOK]

We need to find a modus bibendi

[hedgie]

I actually like that idea of Descartes. You can doubt anything. But by doubting anything you already prove that you exist.

There have been several critiques of that.  Spinoza and Berkeley (and others dealing with metaphysics) have also attempted to deal with the same issue.  Of course then you get into the matter of what "really" exists.  Like if you, and in fact this whole universe are figments of my imagination, one could easily say that you *don't* exist, since independent of me, then you're not actually "real".  And then we get into arguing over whether Descartes had any sort of independent existence even if he *was* a figment.  Given the content of the rest of the Meditations, I think it's fair to say that he did argue just that, that he existed as an independent physical, entity.

[Nyithra]

Now I wanna write a story where people can only exist if they've been drinking. Or perhaps drinking sends people to an alternate universe, I dunno.

[FunkyTuba]

At what point do entities start vanishing in puffs of logic?

[ankhtahr]

That only happens if they disprove themselves by proving themselves.

[Is it cold in here?]

Now I wanna write a story where people can only exist if they've been drinking. Or perhaps drinking sends people to an alternate universe, I dunno.

What if they can only exist when others have been drinking? The Tequila Monster is an example.

[hedgie]

Now I feel in the mood for some Philosophy. I still want to read some of Bertrand Russell's works. He's one of the people I'd consider my idol.

Much less plodding than some of Kant's works, that's to be sure.  I *do* wish that either A) In the next 4 months I'll be able to drive again (unlikely, given that my anxiety is waay too high), or B) the symbolic logic and maths courses I'd need to take to even have a chance at better understanding his works were at a time where I *don't* need to wake up at 0500, since that's rather close to when I go to sleep.  If you don't think like diving into Principia Mathematica any time soon, I can dig up the ISBN for one a sort of Russell's "Best of" on metaphysics from one of my book boxen.

What if they can only exist when others have been drinking? The Tequila Monster is an example.

Maybe he's only *visible* || perhaps corporeal when someone else has drinking?  And why if there's a god of wine, why isn't there a god of hangovers?

[ankhtahr]

Oh no, don't get me started on Kant.

I don't know how the translations are, but in the original German version most of his texts are almost incomprehensible. Well, in addition to most of his theories being almost impossible to understand if one isn't very familiar with the principles behind them.

Kant was the reason my grades went down when our philosophy class in school got to the topic of metaphysics.

[hedgie]

I have heard from multiple professors, that if possible, even if one is a native German speaker, to just read the English translation, and thank $DEITY that you did.

[ankhtahr]

Yeah, I love his sentence structure in German. Shakespeare got nothing on Kant.

This is one sentence:

Allein anderer Seits erhebt es [die menschliche Vernunft] wiederum und giebt ihr ein Zutrauen zu sich selbst, daß sie diese Disciplin selbst ausüben kan und muß, ohne eine andere Censur über sich zu gestatten, imgleichen, daß die Gränzen, die sie ihrem speculativen Gebrauche zu setzen genöthigt ist, zugleich die vernünftelnde Anmaßungen iedes Gegners einschränken und mithin alles, was ihr noch von ihren vorher übertriebenen Forderungen übrig bleiben möchte, gegen alle Angriffe sicher stellen könne.

It's also a bit difficult because it uses old orthography and very old fashioned wordings. I had to read it several times only to find out what it's about. Now I looked up a translation. Oh by the gods, this makes everything a whole lot easier:

But, on the other hand, reason is reassured and gains self-confidence, on finding that it itself can and must apply this discipline, and that it is not called upon to submit to any outside censorship; and, moreover, that the limits which it is compelled to set to its speculative employment likewise limit the pseudo-rational pretensions of all its opponents, and that it can secure against all attacks whatever may remain over from its former exaggerated claims.

Bloody Kant.

Bertrand Russell on the other hand is wonderful to read, and was far ahead of his time, politically and socially. Many of his political or social statements still hold true:

There are those who blame the Press, but in this I think they are mistaken. The Press is such as the public demands, and the public demands bad newspapers because it has been badly educated.

All who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things. That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave. Many people desire those things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer. These people can only be refuted by science: Humankind has become so much one family that we cannot ensure our own prosperity except by ensuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy.

And I still love his comment in the Principia Mathematica after proving that 1 + 1 = 2:

The above proposition is occasionally useful.

[Loki]

I have heard from multiple professors, that if possible, even if one is a native German speaker, to just read the English translation, and thank $DEITY that you did.

...that would have saved me SO MUCH TIME!

To expand on Marten's thought: Our ancestors drank, therefore we are.

[ankhtahr]

Bwahahaha, okay, now that one might actually be true. 

Ah, I found the first text which I read from Russell, it was an excerpt from his "Problems of Philosophy". Great to read, easy to follow, quite thought-provoking.

[Orkboy]

Now I wanna write a story where people can only exist if they've been drinking. Or perhaps drinking sends people to an alternate universe, I dunno.

My buddy ran a game a little bit like that.  It was set in a city you could only enter by staying away long enough and wanting something enough to do anything to get it.  It was a surreal nightmarish place, where everyone had at least mild sleep-deprivation madness. 

[katsmeat]

Maybe he's only *visible* || perhaps corporeal when someone else has drinking?  And why if there's a god of wine, why isn't there a god of hangovers?

The "Oh, God" of hangovers, you mean. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_gods#Bilious

[hedgie]

Bertrand Russell on the other hand is wonderful to read, and was far ahead of his time, politically and socially. Many of his political or social statements still hold true:
And I still love his comment in the Principia Mathematica after proving that 1 + 1 = 2:

The above proposition is occasionally useful.

Aye, he did have a talent there, but sadly, his (and Whitehead's) Principia was pretty much, not shot in the heart so much, but was at the very least, given a rather savage beating by Gödel's incompleteness theorem.  I'm sad, 'cos Principia is such a seminal work, but there's no way that it can't be self-referential.

...that would have saved me SO MUCH TIME!

To expand on Marten's thought: Our ancestors drank, therefore we are.

Sorry that I was too late to help with part "A", and part "B" has gotten me closer to having hellspawn of my own than I'd care to admit.

The "Oh, God" of hangovers, you mean. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_gods#Bilious

Exactly what I was going for.  I can't resist certain things sometimes.

Now, to return to somewhere vaguely on-topic (and it may be astronomical distances here), I don't think it's possible for Claire and Hanners to be in a strip together without the Squee!!!! factor elevating to a state that it may cause the universe to implode.  As much as I like most of the characters in this comic, those two are just the most adorable sometimes^Wall the time.

[pwhodges]

I don't think it's possible for Claire and Hanners to be in a strip together without the Squee!!!! factor elevating to a state that it may cause the universe to implode.

Did you write that because I just changed the subtitle of the forum, or is it a coincidence?!

[hedgie]

Didn't even notice.  Except for than their respective anxiety issues, they're just the two characters in the strip you most want to hug, until everything is okay.

[KOK]

Now I wanna write a story where people can only exist if they've been drinking. Or perhaps drinking sends people to an alternate universe, I dunno.

My buddy ran a game a little bit like that.  It was set in a city you could only enter by staying away long enough and wanting something enough to do anything to get it.  It was a surreal nightmarish place, where everyone had at least mild sleep-deprivation madness.

Don't Rest Your Head, I suppose.

[Akima]

I can think of much worse raisons d'être than drinking. Think of all the people who believe they've been put on Earth to kill people for god, or exterminate some ethnic group, or smash the landlord class. Being a piss-head is way better than that.

[Method of Madness]

I don't think it's possible for Claire and Hanners to be in a strip together without the Squee!!!! factor elevating to a state that it may cause the universe to implode.

Did you write that because I just changed the subtitle of the forum, or is it a coincidence?!

Whoa, you did! What was it before again?

[bhtooefr]

Something like "Hannelore Fanfic Headquarters (warning - constant mod patrols)".

[pwhodges]

Yeah - Jeph wrote the first bit on a flying visit, I added the warning...

[Border Reiver]

Up in Wisconsin, with the winter dragging on, we'd call a day in April "February 90th."

So spring comes early there?

[jwhouk]

Seriously: I don't think we had a spell of more than one day in a row above 40°F this past year until mid-May.

#### Polar Vortex.

[Border Reiver]

Maybe he's only *visible* || perhaps corporeal when someone else has drinking?  And why if there's a god of wine, why isn't there a god of hangovers?

The "Oh, God" of hangovers, you mean. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_gods#Bilious

There are certainly enough deities involved with brewing that a god/goddess of hangovers isn't that far a stretch. (and as an aside there seem to be a lot of Celtic and Norse gods involved...)

[Neko_Ali]

I'm pretty sure the brewing god/dess would cover hangovers as well.. Either cursing them for it, or promising honors in their name if the pain would just go away. Probably both at the same time.

[T]

I actually like that idea of Descartes. You can doubt anything. But by doubting anything you already prove that you exist.

According to the simulation hypothesis we are most likely a simulation. Does that still qualify as existence for you?

[NilsO]

I actually like that idea of Descartes. You can doubt anything. But by doubting anything you already prove that you exist.

According to the simulation hypothesis we are most likely a simulation. Does that still qualify as existence for you?

Descartes did not know about simulations. Therefore, we can assume he is outdated, even if he did exist.

If we are part of a simulation, it is reasonable to assume that the creators have cheated a bit, to reduce processing time. If nobody is looking at the Moon, it is not necessary to include it in the simulation. Likewise, astronomical objects invisible to the naked eye need not be simulated, unless someone is pointing a telescope in that direction. As our exploration of the physical world intensifies (and the world population increases), the computational resources required will increase exponentially. Sooner or later, the simulation gets too expensive, and someone decides to pull the plug

[ysth]

I have it on good authority that Decartes was heavily into stochastic hillclimbing.

[Is it cold in here?]

Descartes's idea of a demon feeding him false sensory input amounted to a simulation, just not a computer simulation.

[T]

According to the simulation hypothesis we are most likely a simulation. Does that still qualify as existence for you?

Descartes did not know about simulations. Therefore, we can assume he is outdated, even if he did exist.

If we are part of a simulation, it is reasonable to assume that the creators have cheated a bit, to reduce processing time. If nobody is looking at the Moon, it is not necessary to include it in the simulation. Likewise, astronomical objects invisible to the naked eye need not be simulated, unless someone is pointing a telescope in that direction. As our exploration of the physical world intensifies (and the world population increases), the computational resources required will increase exponentially. Sooner or later, the simulation gets too expensive, and someone decides to pull the plug

You can still run the simulation at slower speeds. Inside the simulation time will be slowed down too so to any simulated being nothing has changed.

Or maybe not all people are simulated, maybe only your city is being simulated and any experience or person outside it is not rendered. That trip overseas never happened, the moment you stepped in the plane you ceased to exist just to return to exist some time latter with memories and personal objects updated. Like how Simcity can have people coming from the airport without having to simulate the entire world.

[Half Empty Coffee Cup]

I actually like that idea of Descartes. You can doubt anything. But by doubting anything you already prove that you exist.

According to the simulation hypothesis we are most likely a simulation. Does that still qualify as existence for you?

Descartes did not know about simulations. Therefore, we can assume he is outdated, even if he did exist.

If we are part of a simulation, it is reasonable to assume that the creators have cheated a bit, to reduce processing time. If nobody is looking at the Moon, it is not necessary to include it in the simulation. Likewise, astronomical objects invisible to the naked eye need not be simulated, unless someone is pointing a telescope in that direction. As our exploration of the physical world intensifies (and the world population increases), the computational resources required will increase exponentially. Sooner or later, the simulation gets too expensive, and someone decides to pull the plug

The proposition that if nobody is around to hear a tree fall in the forest, there is neither sound nor tree.

[KOK]

If you are not in the forrest when the tree falls, do you really exist?

[Loki]

If you are never in a forest, can a tree ever fall on you?
If you are not a tree, can you ever fall?

[Zebediah]

There is no spoon.






There never was any spoon.

[cesium133]

If a spoon didn't exist, it would be necessary to create it.

[bhtooefr]

You could just create a spork or even a splayd if you needed one, though, without creating a spoon.

[NilsO]

Or maybe not all people are simulated, maybe only your city is being simulated and any experience or person outside it is not rendered. That trip overseas never happened, the moment you stepped in the plane you ceased to exist just to return to exist some time latter with memories and personal objects updated. Like how Simcity can have people coming from the airport without having to simulate the entire world.

I think, therefore I am. But I cannot be sure this applies to others. The universe is a simulation just for me. All you others do not exist.

[ysth]

I think, therefore I am. But I cannot be sure this applies to others. The universe is a simulation just for me. All you others do not exist.

Not much of a Raknarök if it's just you.

[katsmeat]

I think, therefore I am. But I cannot be sure this applies to others. The universe is a simulation just for me. All you others do not exist.

For some reason, today seem to be my Terry Pratchett referencing day....

The Unseen University Professor of Anthropics had developed the Special and Inevitable Anthropic Principle, which was that the entire reason for the existence of the universe was the eventual evolution of the UU Professor of Anthropics.

I forget the rest, but it's something along the lines that everybody, at some level, thinks along the same lines as the aforementioned professor.

[Kugai]

[Zwammy]

I don't think it's possible for Claire and Hanners to be in a strip together without the Squee!!!! factor elevating to a state that it may cause the universe to implode.

Did you write that because I just changed the subtitle of the forum, or is it a coincidence?!

I did see the changed subtitle, finally quit laughing long enough to see if anything was being said about it.

[HauntingPoem]

Yes Claire this is when that happens.

[TheEvilDog]

Maybe we'll see the return of the Beast of Bourbon.

[Zebediah]

Mistakes are about to be made. It's only a question of who is going to make them.

[ankhtahr]

Oh my god, happy Faye is so adorable too.

[TheEvilDog]

Well either way, we all know Marten is going to be in pain, either from the hangover or someone either punching him or headbutting his nads.

Poor guy has no luck.

[ankhtahr]

Maybe they'll both puke on him this time.

But really, I see an evil cliffhanger coming up.

[Rghfrgl]

Tomorrow Jeph let's Willis do a guest strip and he kills them all in a drunk driving accident, freeing Jeph to work on his new strip.