|
Libria
Apr 8, 2007 2:57:17 GMT -5
Post by Resistence is Futile on Apr 8, 2007 2:57:17 GMT -5
Libria is a place of equality and emotion is unheard of because of the overwriting drug prozium. A world without love, hate, happiness and sadness is madness in itself i leave the rest for all of you clerics, sence offenders, sweepers so on so fourth.
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 8, 2007 19:54:44 GMT -5
Post by Aedh on Apr 8, 2007 19:54:44 GMT -5
I vote no on both sentences.
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 8, 2007 23:56:54 GMT -5
Post by Mirabilis on Apr 8, 2007 23:56:54 GMT -5
Definitely 'no.'
|
|
Janus
Sweeper
He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven
Posts: 92
|
Libria
Apr 9, 2007 13:25:10 GMT -5
Post by Janus on Apr 9, 2007 13:25:10 GMT -5
Definately no.
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 10, 2007 16:05:43 GMT -5
Post by Witcher Wolf on Apr 10, 2007 16:05:43 GMT -5
I vote no.
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 10, 2007 17:13:06 GMT -5
Post by Libby on Apr 10, 2007 17:13:06 GMT -5
'Ah...yes, yes,yes, yes ,yes...no'
To misquote (sort of) Jim Trott (dotty character in 'The Vicar of Dibley'...very English comedy series for those who are thinking wtf)
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 12, 2007 13:02:03 GMT -5
Post by Witcher Wolf on Apr 12, 2007 13:02:03 GMT -5
OT: genius comedy series, Dawn French is /the/ bomb For a start I couldn't do my creation in a world like Libria, I'd be dead pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 12, 2007 16:47:41 GMT -5
Post by Libby on Apr 12, 2007 16:47:41 GMT -5
OT: genius comedy series, Dawn French is /the/ bomb *chuckles* ...and wasn't it a hoot that it was Harry who finally got Alice to understand Geraldine's joke! For a start I couldn't do my creation in a world like Libria, I'd be dead pretty quickly. They'd spot me as furnace fuel a mile off ...I never go anywhere without my mascara and lipgloss!
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 12, 2007 18:24:09 GMT -5
Post by Witcher Wolf on Apr 12, 2007 18:24:09 GMT -5
*cackles* They can have my novel when they pry it outta my cold dead HDD.
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 14, 2007 12:36:36 GMT -5
Post by saavik256 on Apr 14, 2007 12:36:36 GMT -5
I vote yes.
|
|
|
Libria
Apr 18, 2007 4:02:21 GMT -5
Post by Ankhareon on Apr 18, 2007 4:02:21 GMT -5
obviously no - hence Dystopia
|
|
|
Libria
May 12, 2007 16:03:39 GMT -5
Post by saavik256 on May 12, 2007 16:03:39 GMT -5
I can't believe I'm the only one who voted yes
|
|
doomtoallchaos
Resistance Member
Another day is just another day to get your ass kicked by this guy!
Posts: 18
|
Libria
Jun 10, 2008 10:06:36 GMT -5
Post by doomtoallchaos on Jun 10, 2008 10:06:36 GMT -5
NO incredably no!!
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 11, 2010 15:01:33 GMT -5
Post by catalystleader on Oct 11, 2010 15:01:33 GMT -5
Of course it is. A world without emotions is a world ruled by logic. And a society that follows pure logic will be able to maximize its potential and achieve the most in the quickest amount of time. Why is this important. Because your existence in the universe is based on survival. The universe does not care what your feelings are. Therefore, one must rely on pure logic in order to have the greatest chances of survival.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 11, 2010 19:36:11 GMT -5
Post by Aedh on Oct 11, 2010 19:36:11 GMT -5
Of course it is. A world without emotions is a world ruled by logic. And a society that follows pure logic will be able to maximize its potential and achieve the most in the quickest amount of time. Why is this important. Because your existence in the universe is based on survival. The universe does not care what your feelings are. Therefore, one must rely on pure logic in order to have the greatest chances of survival. This is true only insofar as logical processes are based on true premises and proceed without flaw. The problem is that misbegotten phenomenon known as error. In a closed logical system, one flaw, or one mispremise, produces a bad end result. For an example, one need only examine the four thousand years of Judaeo-Christianity; based on the [flawed] premise that humanity is somehow fit for the company of God. Feeling often produces unexpected bad results, that is true. However, it also can produce unexpected good results, which logical systems cannot do.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 14, 2010 14:51:44 GMT -5
Post by catalystleader on Oct 14, 2010 14:51:44 GMT -5
Of course it is. A world without emotions is a world ruled by logic. And a society that follows pure logic will be able to maximize its potential and achieve the most in the quickest amount of time. Why is this important. Because your existence in the universe is based on survival. The universe does not care what your feelings are. Therefore, one must rely on pure logic in order to have the greatest chances of survival. This is true only insofar as logical processes are based on true premises and proceed without flaw. The problem is that misbegotten phenomenon known as error. In a closed logical system, one flaw, or one mispremise, produces a bad end result. For an example, one need only examine the four thousand years of Judaeo-Christianity; based on the [flawed] premise that humanity is somehow fit for the company of God. Feeling often produces unexpected bad results, that is true. However, it also can produce unexpected good results, which logical systems cannot do. Would not in a logical society use the scientific method reduce the potentiality for error and use statistical probability? Whereas feeling processes is using some chemically based reaction in the brain to make decisions that may or may not be based based on reality. Do not logical processes have a naturally higher statistical probablity of being correct than emotionally based ones would (such as Christianity)?
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 16, 2010 11:13:12 GMT -5
Post by catalystleader on Oct 16, 2010 11:13:12 GMT -5
Additionally to this topic, does anybody know if there are any socio-political-ideological movements out there in the world for a state and world like Libria? Thanks.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 16, 2010 12:32:55 GMT -5
Post by Aedh on Oct 16, 2010 12:32:55 GMT -5
The Natural Law Party believe that the principal cause of crime and anti-social behaviour is stress, and they advocate the need for scientifically proven techniques for stress reduction as the number-one law enforcement priority. They believe that stress also causes most other social problems as well as being responsible for many international situations.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 16, 2010 23:37:37 GMT -5
Post by invisiblescientist on Oct 16, 2010 23:37:37 GMT -5
There are survivalist elitist societies, who are (or claim to deserve to be) part of the privileged elite classes. Some of these people are obviously very arrogant, narcissistic, and also nasty. If they had a way of surviving WW III in a hermetically sealed eden city, they would not care if the rest of the world perishes. Such narcissistic people would insist on choosing an elite group of people for membership in their post-apocalyptic city state, and they would also use draconian laws to rule their people. Narcissists stop at nothing to maintain their power. They would use various thought control methods for sure.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 17, 2010 0:51:57 GMT -5
Post by Aedh on Oct 17, 2010 0:51:57 GMT -5
There are survivalist elitist societies, who are (or claim to deserve to be) part of the privileged elite classes. Some of these people are obviously very arrogant, narcissistic, and also nasty. If they had a way of surviving WW III in a hermetically sealed eden city, they would not care if the rest of the world perishes. Such narcissistic people would insist on choosing an elite group of people for membership in their post-apocalyptic city state, and they would also use draconian laws to rule their people. Narcissists stop at nothing to maintain their power. They would use various thought control methods for sure. Curse you! You've been reading my notes for "The Aion Engine!" How did you find our house and hack into my computer!!
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 17, 2010 1:17:55 GMT -5
Post by invisiblescientist on Oct 17, 2010 1:17:55 GMT -5
There are survivalist elitist societies, who are (or claim to deserve to be) part of the privileged elite classes. Some of these people are obviously very arrogant, narcissistic, and also nasty. If they had a way of surviving WW III in a hermetically sealed eden city, they would not care if the rest of the world perishes. Such narcissistic people would insist on choosing an elite group of people for membership in their post-apocalyptic city state, and they would also use draconian laws to rule their people. Narcissists stop at nothing to maintain their power. They would use various thought control methods for sure. Curse you! You've been reading my notes for "The Aion Engine!" How did you find our house and hack into my computer!! My apologies! I really didn't mean to hack into your computer. I just work as a contractor for Tetragrammaton, and I originally sent my agents to your house in order to find evidence of unused prozium. Only by accident, and as a secondary bonus the evidentiary team found your notes for "Aion Engine". But if you take your prozium, you might expect leniency. Actually, I am not an expert on hacking, but I heard rumors that Microsoft intentionally left some backdoor access weaknesses in the Windows operating system, so that the government can actually hack into the computers of suspected criminals. But note that they do NOT need to find your house in order to hack into your computer. By causing you to visit a hostile website, they can make you download spyware, which would then transfer the contents of your hard disk to their computer over the internet. But they can also find where you are from your ISP address. If you want totally anonymous web surfing, then there are proxy servers you can rent for less than $80 per year: (www.anonymizer.com) However, I am sure that this anonymous access company would surely allow the government to watch the activities of all its subscribers.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 17, 2010 5:59:26 GMT -5
Post by catalystleader on Oct 17, 2010 5:59:26 GMT -5
There are survivalist elitist societies, who are (or claim to deserve to be) part of the privileged elite classes. Some of these people are obviously very arrogant, narcissistic, and also nasty. If they had a way of surviving WW III in a hermetically sealed eden city, they would not care if the rest of the world perishes. Such narcissistic people would insist on choosing an elite group of people for membership in their post-apocalyptic city state, and they would also use draconian laws to rule their people. Narcissists stop at nothing to maintain their power. They would use various thought control methods for sure. Could I ask for some names of such societies, please? Thanks. ;D
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 17, 2010 9:30:38 GMT -5
Post by Aedh on Oct 17, 2010 9:30:38 GMT -5
Interestingly, I have tried such anonymous surfing techniques--in the pursuit of no 'crime' more heinous than to access the BBC, in order to avoid the Sense-Offence which is American network news. However, they backfire as many places apparently have protocols set to block anonymous users and only to allow ones from a known range of IPs. I would suppose this is on the grounds that if you are surfing anonymously then you must not want people to know where you are coming from, and that this must be for a nefarious reason. If the BBC can do it, I'm sure that the Government can also do it.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 17, 2010 10:08:25 GMT -5
Post by Aedh on Oct 17, 2010 10:08:25 GMT -5
This is true only insofar as logical processes are based on true premises and proceed without flaw. The problem is that misbegotten phenomenon known as error. In a closed logical system, one flaw, or one mispremise, produces a bad end result. For an example, one need only examine the four thousand years of Judaeo-Christianity; based on the [flawed] premise that humanity is somehow fit for the company of God. Feeling often produces unexpected bad results, that is true. However, it also can produce unexpected good results, which logical systems cannot do. Would not in a logical society use the scientific method reduce the potentiality for error and use statistical probability? Whereas feeling processes is using some chemically based reaction in the brain to make decisions that may or may not be based based on reality. Do not logical processes have a naturally higher statistical probablity of being correct than emotionally based ones would (such as Christianity)? You have a point, of course. I have to admit that, speaking as one with graduate degrees in systematic and philosophical theology and social ethics. However useful logic and science are, however, they have their limits. One need only think of Gödel's theorems. Gödel's 'Completeness Theorem" states that whatever propositions are taken as axioms, one can prove all (and only) those statements that hold in all structures satisfying the axioms. But if some statement is true of the natural numbers but is not true of another system of entities that also satisfies the axioms, then it cannot be proved. However, Gödel also showed in his 'INcompleteness Theorem' that no matter how you formulate the axioms for number theory, there will always be some statement that is true of the natural numbers, but that can't be proved. (That is, objects that obey the axioms of number theory but fail to behave like the natural numbers in some other respects do exist.) Very well, but how can one turn such a true but unprovable statement into an axiom? After all, axioms are precisely those statements which we accept to be true without proof. But here lies the bite of the incompleteness theorem: Gödel showed that whenever the axioms can be characterized by a set of mechanical rules, it does not matter which statements are taken to be axioms: some other true statements about the natural numbers will remain unprovable. It's like an ill-designed jigsaw puzzle. No matter how you arrange the pieces, you'll always end up with some that won't fit in the end. An axiom which needs to appeal to some higher principle to prove itself in the face of a conflicting axiom is, by definition, no longer an axiom. This is still over and above the simple and irreducible phenomena of error and accident. The more perfect the logic of a system is, the more completely it is destroyed by the introduction of a non-factored element. A Roomba vacuum cleaner will clean your floors perfectly and logically, unless a potted plant happens to fall over, or unless there is a power cut. A conscientious human will do a better job of cleaning a floor than a robot will, not in all cases, but in some, such as in the above instances, because the human can put the plant right, or switch to broom and dustpan which require no electricity. Any really rigorous logical thinking recognises its own limits. That is why it seeks to improve itself. I do not argue that feeling is superior to logic in all situations. But I do argue that feeling still retains some chance of successfully guiding a task to completion in situations where logic is utterly defeated by its own limitations or by happenstance accidents and errors which come from without.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 17, 2010 14:38:27 GMT -5
Post by catalystleader on Oct 17, 2010 14:38:27 GMT -5
You have a point, of course. I have to admit that, speaking as one with graduate degrees in systematic and philosophical theology and social ethics. However useful logic and science are, however, they have their limits. One need only think of Gödel's theorems. Gödel's 'Completeness Theorem" states that whatever propositions are taken as axioms, one can prove all (and only) those statements that hold in all structures satisfying the axioms. But if some statement is true of the natural numbers but is not true of another system of entities that also satisfies the axioms, then it cannot be proved. However, Gödel also showed in his 'INcompleteness Theorem' that no matter how you formulate the axioms for number theory, there will always be some statement that is true of the natural numbers, but that can't be proved. (That is, objects that obey the axioms of number theory but fail to behave like the natural numbers in some other respects do exist.) Very well, but how can one turn such a true but unprovable statement into an axiom? After all, axioms are precisely those statements which we accept to be true without proof. But here lies the bite of the incompleteness theorem: Gödel showed that whenever the axioms can be characterized by a set of mechanical rules, it does not matter which statements are taken to be axioms: some other true statements about the natural numbers will remain unprovable. It's like an ill-designed jigsaw puzzle. No matter how you arrange the pieces, you'll always end up with some that won't fit in the end. An axiom which needs to appeal to some higher principle to prove itself in the face of a conflicting axiom is, by definition, no longer an axiom. This is still over and above the simple and irreducible phenomena of error and accident. The more perfect the logic of a system is, the more completely it is destroyed by the introduction of a non-factored element. A Roomba vacuum cleaner will clean your floors perfectly and logically, unless a potted plant happens to fall over, or unless there is a power cut. A conscientious human will do a better job of cleaning a floor than a robot will, not in all cases, but in some, such as in the above instances, because the human can put the plant right, or switch to broom and dustpan which require no electricity. Any really rigorous logical thinking recognises its own limits. That is why it seeks to improve itself. I do not argue that feeling is superior to logic in all situations. But I do argue that feeling still retains some chance of successfully guiding a task to completion in situations where logic is utterly defeated by its own limitations or by happenstance accidents and errors which come from without. Of course there will be situations when feelings make a better decision than logic, however, due to the natures of both, this will be very far and few in-between. That is why I would chose a system of pure logic and discipline over one that involves feelings. Logical systems may not be able to predict everything, but neither can feelings. Also, when an unpredictable element is introduced into a system of logic, I would not say that the system of logic is destroyed. I would simply say then that the system of logic evolves. And why can't it? Systems of logic are based on human perception and human perception is limited and still evolving as well, no? Sort of like with your robotic vacuum cleaner example. The reason why the human can clean it up better than the robot is simply because our knowledge of robotics hasn't evolved to the point yet where the robot can handle such a situation better than a human can. But this too will evolve and change over time.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 17, 2010 14:44:21 GMT -5
Post by Aedh on Oct 17, 2010 14:44:21 GMT -5
I agree with your deep consideration of the perfectibility of logic. And in certain situations, such as discovering mathematical theorems or theological propositions, we can reserve matters for advance when the proper knowledge is attained. However, when it comes to managing a family, a group, or a society, we don't always have time. I'm not sure we can afford to wait for the evolution of logical principles when the kids are cranky and tired and need to be put to bed.
|
|
|
Libria
Oct 29, 2010 12:50:05 GMT -5
Post by catalystleader on Oct 29, 2010 12:50:05 GMT -5
I agree with your deep consideration of the perfectibility of logic. And in certain situations, such as discovering mathematical theorems or theological propositions, we can reserve matters for advance when the proper knowledge is attained. However, when it comes to managing a family, a group, or a society, we don't always have time. I'm not sure we can afford to wait for the evolution of logical principles when the kids are cranky and tired and need to be put to bed. In an ideal situation, a logical person would manage a logical group. And even if a logical person leads an irrational group, that irrationality could still probably be statistically calculated to some degree or another.
|
|