Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Chessnut

1 ... 8 [9] 10
Way to leave your e-mail in your profile dumbshit.


Interzone / Re: Movies replace reality
« on: August 18, 2009, 04:49:28 PM »
Ever watch Baraka? It's the same as photography. The film does not mimic reality. It may be suggestive, but it is reality. Since when does fiction such as sci-fi and fantasy attempt to mimic reality? That seems like a paradox to me. Anyway, we all know that even though sci-fi and fantasy don't fall into this categorization, it doesn't mean it's inherently good. What we look for in all forms of media is their ability to capture meaning beyond what is apparent.

I should have been more clear with my final point. Why watch a movie about a realistic situation when you can just do something outside that is more interesting and that you can influence?

Interzone / Re: Movies replace reality
« on: August 17, 2009, 09:11:27 PM »
Any media that attempts to mimic reality and impose "stories" is garbage. If it is idealistic, leave it as such, otherwise scrap it (romance, action, comedy, drama, et cetera). What the fuck is the point of watching something about "reality"?

Interzone / Re: Romanticism: opposed to science?
« on: August 11, 2009, 10:13:21 AM »
Mathematics and science, to me, means representation of reality. Many operations in mathematics have only abstract meaning, but lead to real results; you let logic of mathematics lead you to the results. I guess you could say that science and rational justification are not necessary/important as people think, if you live in a cave. Understanding the verification of truth leads to more comprehensive understanding of reality. I guess in from Jim Necroslaughter's quote of Blake is fair to represent Romanticism as such, but it seems that Romanticism is very primitive and too ideal for our modern times. Engineering, the manipulation of reality, is the foundation of our society, whether it be for good or bad. It seems Blake is undermining engineering, rather than supporting the environmental side of Romanticism.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the responsibility humans have for technology and environment, and that Blake quote doesn't do Romanticism much justice. I see Romanticism as containing a certain degree of naturalism, leaning toward more sustainable practices, rather than denying the importance of science and rational justification.

Metal / Re: Hessian Flyer
« on: August 03, 2009, 04:34:08 AM »
Credit goes to grandinquisitor2.

Interzone / Re: Cosmic design
« on: July 29, 2009, 08:06:42 AM »
To RedReign: These pebbles, though should not be mistaken for entities, depend solely on the atomic structure and composition, which gives them their characteristic angle of repose, silicate structure, cleavage, et cetera. They are not performing computations as humans understand it. From the report the bacteria are performing computationally reducible calculations through human input. However, the report contains biology far beyond my level of understanding, so my interpretation may be skewed. The important point is that the bacteria can be translated, and we are looking at their "macroscopic" structure, rather than their atomic structure.

"Computation is therefore simply a question of translating inputs and outputs from one system to another."

Please expand on this, or correct me if I am wrong. Thank you.

Complexity Theory is a very exciting idea, and it seems that humans are very close to becoming God. A lecture from Stephen Wolfram about the Complexity Theory.

Interzone / Re: The Bible as an environmentalist text
« on: June 15, 2009, 12:12:03 PM »
Weev (interviewed by Corrupt) speaks of God, family, Jews and the earth.
Part 1
Part 2

Metal / Re: Why Death Metal?
« on: June 13, 2009, 01:36:30 PM »
Just because it's on this site doesn't mean you need to like it. Personally, I can enjoy bands like Demilich, Antropomorphia, and little else (although I haven't really listened to much to begin with). I predominantly enjoy the "Romantic-esque" type black metal, and completely avoid Immortal, Mayhem, and Darkthrone (besides Transylvanian Hunger).

I guess this means we can differ in taste, celticcross. Admittedly, I can appreciate good death metal but I may not enjoy it as much as good black metal. I guess we understand quality music but have different criteria.

Interzone / Re: Any scientists, mathematicians, or engineers here?
« on: May 28, 2009, 01:31:13 AM »
Expanding on Orange's explanation, by changing the file extension, you just change what programs can view the file. It is not meant to be converted to .txt or any word processing format, because .mp3 files store more than just the song, but also song information, such as artist, ratings, album, etc. and changing this data destroys the integrity of the file and you likely will not be able to play it. In all honesty, you should just use programs that are designed to create music files, otherwise you will corrupt the file. I believe the language you're talking about is binary, octal, hexadecimal, etc. etc. convert into ASCII (which is what a word processor does to the file). This machine code was used back in the early 50's (and earlier) for computer programming, before programming languages like FORTRAN or assembly languages, etc. were developed. . . Or something like that.

To get back on topic, this isn't my area of specialty --  I'm currently in the middle of my second year of environmental engineering.

Interzone / Re: Structural realism
« on: April 10, 2009, 04:34:42 PM »
I was just about to comment on that. I think that Ginnungafap is trying to disprove your argument, JewBob.

Anyway, statistics are used to determine the accuracy of our models and predictions, or the probability that something will occur (or not occur). However, since you can never prove causation with statistics, you're stuck with correlations. It is impossible to create a model based upon causation, so you seek better correlations, as JewBob has said. I hope this adds some insight.

Interzone / Re: Atheism
« on: January 02, 2009, 03:57:30 PM »
Religion is a vehicle toward transcendence. Atheism lacks this ability, but this does not mean an individual cannot transcend, or "working toward the superman" as most of you know it as. I think that this is what we're all trying to say here, but we get lost in language.

Interzone / Re: Not wanting to engage with reality
« on: December 24, 2008, 06:12:17 PM »
there was something you said a while ago that i found interesting, but it left me with a question. it was more or less that you wouldn't suggest doing anything illegal. i doubt that following laws because they're laws is an attitude of yours -there's obviously a reason for that suggestion- so i'm wondering what the reason is? is it purely a pragmatic concern?

I don't think we are here to spoon-feed you answers on how to run your life, that is for you to decide. Take control of your life, the answers are all there. I think this clears up any of your concerns. If you understand what ASBO is saying, there is no need to question further.

And if you could please work on your English, it would help me better understand what you're trying to say. You can act upon this, ignore it, or provide me with drivel. The decision is yours. The answer should be obvious. This can be more symbolic than literal.

Metal / Re: The role of bass guitar in Metal.
« on: December 18, 2008, 07:11:07 AM »
Swans' album Public Castration is a Good Idea gives quite a different interpretation of the bass guitar, but it's not really metal. It's heavier than metal, which makes it truly fearsome. So, if you're looking for what a bass guitar can do that's beyond metal, check Swans' earlier works out before 1987. This is likely the wrong direction to take the bass guitar though. A more classical approach, like what uvanimon suggested, is likely the direction bass guitar should head, in metal.

Interzone / Re: Why Relativism Fails
« on: December 16, 2008, 06:50:54 PM »
Everyone should become familiar with the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle and observer effect. It basically states that position and velocity of a particle can never be absolutely achieved, even in ideal, perfect situations, that this uncertainty is a manifestation of reality itself.

Also, it is possible to go faster than the speed of light, but no information can be transmitted, and in fact, the exact speed of light has been defined (see this).

Woow. Dat sum fucked up shit.

Edit: changed derived to defined, since it's all made up.

Interzone / Re: Why Relativism Fails
« on: December 11, 2008, 11:41:57 PM »
I think you misinterpreted what I said from the other thread. I'll try to be more clear. Social sciences are based upon relativitism. Hard sciences are based upon objectivism. Psychoanalysis is social science. Neuroscience is hard science. Defining something using relativism fails. I believe most here believe this.

Edit: science on the brain

1 ... 8 [9] 10