dimreepr

An excellent assesment, having just had such an arguement, I can only concure. I dont have this desire to controll others (whats the point) so have no refrence to understand this concept. I did however start to get angry but not because I wanted to controll her, more the stubborness to accept evidence based conclusions (white isnt black) spoilt what was otherwise an interesting debate.

I think most often in people the general reason for anger in an arguement comes down to articulation. Pesonally my eloquence often lets me down. If I don't have enough time to formulate a responce, anger will often result. This however shouldn't happen on a forum as time isn't relavent. So, is it anger or is it resentment?

I think its powered by the same thing that keeps the international money markets going, imagination.

I think the best way to describe this is by way of powley's exclusion principle. For this to work I think the universe, or our region of it* is in a positive ground state. The creation of an atom is caused, when the negative energy standing waves grip a tiny region of space/time and condences it into a proton. This would stretch space/time creating gravity. * This would violate durac's equation, if you dont allow for a negative ground state to excist in other regions of space/time thus allowing for the excistance of antimatter. These regions may excist now or maybe was destroyed soon after the universal inflation.

The thing is its range of possible positions, is everywhere in the universe. I think we have to thank hub for refuting determinism, as the exclusion principle would go along way to prooving it.

This is the point of the post.

This would result in a suit of armour containing human soup. You would not only, need a material to withstand the impact, but you would need a way to dissipate the engry without impacting the wearer

Whilst I love dogs and would be happy to discuss this all day, Its not really the point. My question ask's for an animal that can be considered just self aware.

this is what i feared I really dont have the eloquence to explain any further. I've had fun on this forum but this question is the reason I've joined. It's very frustrating to have a question that few can even understand.Due I know to my explanation.

A recent post got me thinking. The mirror test of self awareness can't be considered an absolute test for self awareness, as the only conclusion you can take from an animals inability to recognise its self is that it failed the test. My dog for instance, hates the rain, if when she gets to the door and it's raining she refuses to go for a walk. I may be wrong here, but for me this implies she's makeing a choice, based on a future event. Given that there are animals that are definately not aware, a duck for instance. This would automatically mean we can create a linear graph, unaware at the begining and humans (conceted I know but what else) at the finnish. My question is this, what type of animal is just aware. My thinking is perhaps an octopus it's a problem solveing animal but has to relearn the problem however many times it's presented.

Thats partly why I've started this post, testing, I've done as much as my knowledge will allow and was hoping, it would be taken up by somebody much smarter than myself. The other reason is, if this doesn't happen then atleast its destroyed, because my family and friends are fedup with my ponderings in this. The implications are possibley unification

It could also exlpain the conectivety of the universe due to the exclusion principle.

captain panics right but unfortunatly polititions are just as bad at agreeing. I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

For me corruption is the enrichment of oneself in the knowledge that this act will impoverish others

Unfortunately that is VERY unlikely, the North Korean people can at best look forward to more of the same.Third generation dictatorships, history shows, generally degenerate. 1st generation wins the power, 2nd generation loots it, 3rd generation looses it. All we can really hope is that he looses it quickly. And yes the song is awesome, I allways look to south park for my social commentry.

This is a parradox, how can you believe this and be able to write it down.

I think quatum mechanics entirely muddies the scientific waters. The problem being it has no hypothesis. Its our atempt at retro-engineering the universe, consiquently it is filled with this type of uncertaincy

I agree their are logical flaws in the statement, it is very difficult to avoid this in such a short statement, however the basic premis still stands.

Yes offcorse we think for ourselves in the sense of do i reply to this post or not. I have choosen to respond. That choice however is bounded. The term free will really needs definition to establish what choices we really have.

I think in general power corrupts. This statement automatically moots your argument, since it allows the possibility of the uncorruptable.

I am probably being very stupid but wouldn't this mean it would shut itself down.

The one thing I have learned on this forum is, you have to get the question right. My first attempt at this was, I'm afraid a disaster.This was due to my lack of eloquence and naivety (on this forum). So having a weeks experience, here goes. I think matter is, fundamentaly made up of an energy/spacetime interaction*. For me this goes along way to explaining our universe. E=MC^2, matter anihilation when the energy is released, the reason gravity is so weak compared to the other forces and gravity itself*. Now this I'm not clever enough to be sure but it seems to comply with durac's equation. I'm clearly no einstien, consequently I have no math to back up this hypothesis. Please please please help me destroy this hypothesis and bring peace to my musings. *If you imagine energy is an open hand and spacetime is a foamy substance. The hand makes a fist this action creates matter and in doing so stretches the foam.

Jesus, Buddha and mohamed. Three people who are famously refuted to be uncorruptable, though they weren't tested by absolute power. If they're reputations are accurate then few could doubt they would pass. I think the old saying "it takes one to know one" is particularly relevent here. Anybody who is corrupt would be unable to understand the concept as they're only reference is corrupt thinking. If only our society could atchieve that very thing. Platocracy in my view is the only chance our society has for a reasonable relatively corrupt free future. To atchieve this, is offcorse almost impossible. First you need a benign philosipher, though how you test his/her uncorruptabilty (food for ferther thought), then offcorse, you need the consensus of the people to allow this person absolute domain. tricky...

I dont believe power corrupts. I believe power attracts the corruptable.