Shadowcloak asked where we're from.
I guess most of us have web access, so I've cooked up a web-based survey!
Go to http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/members/daria/survey.htm to participate.
(I thought I'd better post this a new thread as well as a reply to the old one.)
Martin.
Perhaps when you get time, you could expand the survey to include things like "favorite show" or "favorite character."
Or even "Should Daria & Trent get together?" :-)
Jeg7777 wrote in message ...
Kind of you to take an interest, Joe! I cooked up the survey in a coffee break in response to Shadowcloak's question, and I'm operating on the KISS principle (variously, "Keep It Short & Simple," "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" or "Keep It Simple, Sweetie!"). ISTR there may be more developed surveys, asking questions such as you propose, on one or more of the Daria websites (sorry, no URLs to hand). I don't want to compete with these fine sites, or duplicate their work!
AFAIK the Bravenet votecaster engine allows no more than ten responses per question, so I couldn't ask people their favourite episode of each series (of 13). There would be workarounds, such as splitting series, but that ain't KISS.
Aaaagh, no! (That's no to *asking* the question in a survey.) We don't want the MTV Suits telling the Daria Creatives, "78% of Daria fans (don't want)/(want) to see them get together: find her a new beau / get on with it." I admire MTV for backing such a counter-cultural show as Daria, so I'm not saying that's what *would* happen; but people & policies change, and the survey results might be a hostage to fortune. Let's leave it to the writers! Of course, "Should Daria & Trent get together? Why? Why not?" would be okay as a discussion thread in here. <takes cover> 8-)
I choose not to commit more time to the survey than I have already. Don't want to end up with no time to read alt.tv.daria!
Maybe after a couple of months I might decide to kill off the readership survey and post some different questions (I'm registered for one votecaster engine running at a time).
Martin.
I wrote in message ...
[...]
I've now added a link on that page to go directly to the current results, without having to wait for the questionnaire to load.
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote:
I can't get it to work. That's probably 'cos I'm using an older computer that's a bit crappy because the good computer's hard disk melted, (that also explains the mysterious disappearance of my sig, if anyone's been wondering) and it's going to be ages until it gets fixed. And nothing works on this computer, so I can't do the little survey-thing 'cos Netscape's not working too well. Or at all, really.
Alli
endless, nameless wrote in message ...
[...]
Oh, poo. Never mind, Alli, it'll still be there when your good PC gets fixed.
For Alli, and for anyone without web access, here's the results as of about 1700 GMT today, 30 November.
Question 1 Where are you from? 1) UK 6 21% 2) Elsewhere in Europe 0 0% 3) USA 20 71% 4) Elsewhere outside Europe 2 7%
Question 2 If you are from the UK: where do you watch Daria? (Leave this question unanswered if you're from outside the UK) 1) On channel five only 4 67% 2) On satellite or cable only 0 0% 3) On channel five and on satellite or cable 2 33%
Question 3 How often do you read the messages in alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 23 82% 2) Occasionally 5 18% 3) Rarely 0 0% 4) Never 0 0%
Question 4 How often do you post a message to alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 7 25% 2) Occasionally 4 14% 3) Rarely 9 32% 4) Never 8 29%
Martin.
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:11:32 -0000, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:
I wish the numbers were higher for #2 and #4.
While I was out of town I had an idea. I am thinking of compiling a list of lists that show up on ATD from time to time. It would be a list posted to ATD on a bi-weekly or monthly basis (with a copy on the web) and would consist of lists of favorites contributed by the regulars of ATD. The list would cover favorite: bands/performer/musicians/songs books/authors/poems/poets TV shows; comedy/drama/cartoons movies etc...
It would be a list of interests you want to share with the readers of ATD without starting a frenzy of off-topic postings. I think I may add a rant section too (mad about something? add it to your section of the Happydude Off-Topic list.) It could also be a reference for new ATD readers. I was amazed with some of the common interests, other than Daria, on ATD (someone ELSE listens to Velocity Girl!).
I have a general idea of how the it should be laid out, now I need to know: 1) Is this something that would be of interest to ATD readers or would it be a waste of time/bandwidth? 2) Would you be willing to contribute to the list? 3) How should I gather the data? a) e-mail me the information b) I e-mail ATD readers to request the information (this one may be annoying and fall under the category of unsolicited e-mail) c) users post the data to ATD 4) How often should it be posted?
The idea is still a bit embryonic but should evolve (or devolve) as it starts to come together. If the idea is well-recieved i'll get started on it and post more information to get it started.
- Oh! that's a meat thermometer? Well I don't have a fever, that's for sure. -Ben Katz
Martin Sylvester wrote:
Which will be, like, never. Oh, well. I can always beg my dad to let me use his computer, which is even better than the one that broke. I can see my dad just buying a new computer rather than waiting for the broken one to be fixed, he buys one every year or so, which is why we have five PCs at the moment.
How many non-alt.tv.daria readers would you expect to participate in an alt.tv.daria readership survey? :)
[address]'s 8 people out there who're reading everything we post, we don't know them! I get totally paranoid about lurkers, I don't know who they are, what they're thinking when they read my posts, who they're working for! Show yourselves! Come on, you can't hide from me forever!
Alli
Shez wrote:
Oh great.200 people now know that: a) I have forced my younger brother to eat crayons (and mud, actually, but I don't think that's been mentioned yet...), b) I have a crush on the American boy in my Art class, and c) I went through a phase of listening to the Backstreet Boys when I was 12 years old.
Eep. That's a lot.
Oh, well, I don't know what Tao Te Ching is, but I'mgoing to assume it's, like, Chinese or something similar.
Uh-oh....
Alli
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:05:55 -0800, "endless, nameless" wrote:
"accidents" happen
we know now, you simply said you like him. I didn't imply a crush from that. does he have an e-mail address? we could see how many of these lurkers are would-be matchmakers
At least you didn't post every tiny detail of your life long depression, you've shared a few bits and pieces about your mental state but I wrote long rambling rants. I'm afraid to read all the things I wrote here. I could never run for a political office, that's for sure.
The US government does archive all of Usenet for reference. I wouldn't be suprised if most countries do the same.
- Oh! that's a meat thermometer? Well I don't have a fever, that's for sure. -Ben Katz
Happydude wrote:
No, my parents stopped believing my "accident" claimsafter they caught me trying to make him swalow his toy helicopter....
I said too much. Shit.
Shit shit shit. I hope not. He could be reading this.Oh, who cares. Jasmeen already told him ages ago. The stupid blabber-mouth bitch.....
I never told anyone what that *really* embarrassing recordI own was. And I have no intention of doing so, either!
OK, well, now it's me who can never run for political office (not that I'd particularly want to).... :)
Alli
endless, nameless wrote in message ...
Yep. Up to that point only those who saw the significance of "Vavavavoom?" "Shut up!" (rather than, say, "Vavavavoom?" "No.") had any idea.
Vavavavoom. 8-)
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote:
I'm not actually sure what that means, but I just took awild guess and concluded that "Shut up!" was the best answer in such a situation.... turns out it wasn't....
Alli
Shez wrote:
Yeah, it would be considered a sign of normality by a lot ofpeople! :)
Shut up! :)
I don't know very much about Taoism. It's in all the RS text books at school, but we've never actually studied it. We did a lot on Islam, and some on Buddhism, and the teacher is constantly trying to indoctrinate us with her own beliefs, and appears determined to get us all to believe there is a God, etc....
Alli
endless, nameless wrote in message ...
Teehee. Yes, a bit mischievous that one, I admit! ;-)
I *just* resisted the temptation to offer "Only visiting this planet" as an option for Q1.
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote:
Ah, see, if you'd put that in, loads of people would havesaid that just for a joke, and you'd never know how many really were only visiting! The truth is out there....
Alli
In article , "endless, nameless" wrote:
But aren't we all, though? Just visiting this planet? Y'know? M'kay?
For Alli, and for anyone else presently without web access, here's the results as of about 1900 GMT today, 6 December.
Question 1 Where are you from? 1) UK 8 18% 2) Elsewhere in Europe 0 0% 3) USA 35 78% 4) Elsewhere outside Europe 2 4%
Question 2 If you are from the UK: where do you watch Daria? (Leave this question unanswered if you're from outside the UK) 1) On channel five only 6 75% 2) On satellite or cable only 0 0% 3) On channel five and on satellite or cable 2 25%
Question 3 How often do you read the messages in alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 36 80% 2) Occasionally 9 20% 3) Rarely 0 0% 4) Never 0 0%
Question 4 How often do you post a message to alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 9 20% 2) Occasionally 11 24% 3) Rarely 14 31% 4) Never 11 24%
Thanks to all the participants. If there's any change, I'll post new results here next week sometime.
To see the latest results online, or to participate, go to http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/members/daria/survey.htm No typing is required! Just click your answer from the choices offered.
Martin.
For Alli, and for anyone else presently without web access, and for whatever it's worth, here's the results as of about 1930 GMT today, 13 December.
Question 1 Where are you from? 1) UK 8 16% 2) Elsewhere in Europe 0 0% 3) USA 38 78% 4) Elsewhere outside Europe 3 6%
Question 2 If you are from the UK: where do you watch Daria? (Leave this question unanswered if you're from outside the UK) 1) On channel five only 6 75% 2) On satellite or cable only 0 0% 3) On channel five and on satellite or cable 2 25%
Question 3 How often do you read the messages in alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 39 80% 2) Occasionally 10 20% 3) Rarely 0 0% 4) Never 0 0%
Question 4 How often do you post a message to alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 9 18% 2) Occasionally 12 24% 3) Rarely 16 33% 4) Never 12 24%
Thanks to all participants!
To see the latest results online, or to participate, go to http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/members/daria/survey.htm No typing is required! Just click your answer from the choices offered.
I will keep this survey up for at least another week.
Some people have wondered out loud how old atd inhabitants are: I may decide to put up a new survey asking this question, and possibly something like "How many people in your household watch Daria?"
Other suggestions for questions welcome! Each question must offer a choice of (up to ten) mutually exclusive preset answers.
For a more free-form questionnaire, see another survey, of Darianites' favourite things, at (well, I was going to put the URL here but the message has expired on my server and Dejanews is not responding; sorry).
Martin.
On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 20:09:26 -0000, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:
http://www.magicnet.net/~mrhankey/index.html
Martin Sylvester wrote:
Ah, the 'good' computer's been fixed! I'm OK now. :)
Alli
On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 20:16:39 +0000, "endless, nameless" wrote:
Does that mean that the ~*~*~Alli~*~*~ sig is coming back? I sort of miss the squiggles.
On 13 Dec 1998 21:16:59 GMT, [email] (Happydude) wrote:
I just miss making fun of it.
~*~*~Kyle~*~*~ "Of COURSE there aren't in girls in lesbian chat!"
___
Uh-oh, someone just put me in a position of responsibility! The day has suddenly turned sinister...
Another Nugget of Knowledge from the Wonderful World of Kyle(TM), ICQ#12773280
Kyle wrote:
Oh, right, I'll put it back *right away* then! :)
Alli
Happydude wrote:
Hehehe. It'll come back if I can think of something to put underneath. Any suggestions?
Alli
On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 22:05:59 +0000, "endless, nameless" wrote:
I've always enjoyed the Pixies quotes.
how about: ~*~*~Alli~*~*~ "There are no onions in this post, I swear"
Happydude wrote:
I think I only had two Pixies quotes there. But I can't remember what they were now!
LOL. Noone on any other newsgroup would get that! :)
Alli
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:56:05 +0000, "endless, nameless" wrote:
it was either; "I'm digging for fire" or "Digging for fire"
I dont remember the other one, I may have been from Debaser.
True, the anti-onion revolution will not be televised. I'm not even sure people on this newsgroup would get it. They, most likely, skipped the messages in that part of the thread. there was a lot of talk about vomiting and onion related rage and murder. It was a great catharsis though.
endless, nameless wrote in message ...
"Me, The Thirteenth Duke of Wynbourne, with my reputation, asked to make suggestions to a sixteen-year-old girl? Whatever are they thinking of?"
With apologies to all those who don't watch The Fast Show! http://www.comedyzone.beeb.com/fastshow/
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote:
That's still "fifteen-year-old girl," until Wednesday, anyhow. :) I guess that's worse, huh?
Alli
endless, nameless wrote in message ...
"Me, The Thirteenth Duke of Wynbourne, with my reputation, asked if that's _worse_? Whatever is she thinking of?"
With renewed apologies to those thoroughly confused people who've never seen The Fast Show (video clip of the Thirteenth Duke may help, on the Comedy Zone website). http://www.comedyzone.beeb.com/fastshow/
Martin.
endless, nameless wrote in message ...
Glad to hear it!
Martin.
For anyone else presently without web access, and for whatever it's worth, here's the results as of about 1700 GMT today, 20 December.
Question 1 Where are you from? 1) UK 12 21% 2) Elsewhere in Europe 0 0% 3) USA 41 73% 4) Elsewhere outside Europe 3 5%
Question 2 If you are from the UK: where do you watch Daria? (Leave this question unanswered if you're from outside the UK) 1) On channel five only 7 58% 2) On satellite or cable only 0 0% 3) On channel five and on satellite or cable 5 42%
Question 3 How often do you read the messages in alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 43 77% 2) Occasionally 11 20% 3) Rarely 0 0% 4) Never 2 4%
Question 4 How often do you post a message to alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 10 18% 2) Occasionally 13 23% 3) Rarely 17 30% 4) Never 16 29%
Thanks to all participants!
To see the latest results online, or to participate, go to http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/members/daria/survey.htm No typing is required! Just click your answer from the choices offered.
For a more free-form questionnaire, see Happydude's survey, of Darianites' favourite things, at http://www.magicnet.net/~mrhankey/index.html
Martin.
For anyone else presently without web access, and for whatever it's worth, here's the results as of about 1100 GMT today, 28 December.
Question 1 Where are you from? 1) UK 13 22% 2) Elsewhere in Europe 1 2% 3) USA 42 71% 4) Elsewhere outside Europe 3 5% Comment: nice to see "Elsewhere in Europe" represented at last.
Question 2 If you are from the UK: where do you watch Daria? (Leave this question unanswered if you're from outside the UK) 1) On channel five only 7 54% 2) On satellite or cable only 0 0% 3) On channel five and on satellite or cable 6 46%
Question 3 How often do you read the messages in alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 44 75% 2) Occasionally 12 20% 3) Rarely 0 0% 4) Never 3 5% Comment: obviously people who don't read atd are finding out about the survey; could be from something I posted on the c5 website's message board, could be by word of mouth. Perhaps I'll have to rename the survey the Daria fan survey, instead of the atd survey?
Question 4 How often do you post a message to alt.tv.daria? 1) Regularly 10 17% 2) Occasionally 15 25% 3) Rarely 17 29% 4) Never 17 29% Comment: this curve looks a bit more true-to-life than it did.
Thanks to all participants!
To see the latest results online, or to participate, go to http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/members/daria/survey.htm No typing is required! Just click your answer from the choices offered.
For a more free-form questionnaire, see Happydude's survey, of Darianites' favourite things, at http://www.magicnet.net/~mrhankey/index.html
Lanikea's survey of our favourite episodes, characters, music, and so on, is here on news:alt.tv.daria.
Martin.
I always thought of the force being like transcendentalism like we're talking about in American Lit... with things being connected... and with Nature as good (note all the "good guys" very natural, wear natural colors, etc., where as "bad guys" are black/white and somewhat part machine) ... which is a bit like Taoism too I guess. Admittedly there's no "dark side" in Transcendentalism or Taoism, but it would have been a pretty boring movie without villains :) ... more of that comes out of the Greeks I think, like, I watched this video in Mythology with Joseph Campbell talking about Star Wars, because Lucas had talked to him before making it, so there are a some of those sort of elements in it (hero's journey, defeat of the father, etc.)
I don't know how well she'd like "going with the flow" or all of that... but she did say regarding hippies "If you're going to hold on to something from the '60s, peace and love beat a "Get Smart" lumchbox". Or something.
Dagny
Visit the Parsley Firefly http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697 Monty Python, Spike Milligan, Marx Brothers and More!
"One must have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you still have chaos in you." Friedrich Nietzsche
i like the idea of taoism. I wish i could follow two philosiphies without having to denounce christianity. Damn parents.
BTW, personally, i think that Daria would have liked Calvinism. If you aren't farmilliar with Calvinism, then flee from this newsgroup, because we don't want you.
CrtoonDude wrote:
Uhh....I'll get my coat.
Alli
hmmmm... perhaps i spoke too soon. I suppose i took for granted that everyone one here would be farmilliar with predestination.
Predestination, first introduced by John Calvin, is the notion that everything that ever happens, has happened, or will happen is God's will. Meaning, God decides exactly what is going to happen to us every day.. This also says that God had already decided who will and won't get into heaven before we are born. A person could be born, already with a 100% chance of getting into heaven, they could kill and rape hundreds of people in the course of their lives, and they would still get into heaven.
Anyway, the reason i said i thought daria would like it is becasue it's the ultimate justification for anything. No matter what you do, you can just say "Hey, that wasn't me feeding my brother mud, it was God's will."
CrtoonDude wrote:
Oh, yeah, my parents would totally listen to that! :)
That's all a bit like my theory on life, the universe, everything.... It's a bit complicated. I don't know where I got it from, don't even know if I can explain it. I think that everything has, like, already happened, so what's gonna happen is already set because it's already happened. Therefore, you can't change what happens, you just have to go along with it because it's all set out, and that's also how people can see into the future, like, premonitions, and stuff, because it's already happened, and they're just sort of remembering it.....Are you all confused now? I know what I mean, I just can't explain it!
Alli
endless, nameless wrote in message ...
This is a bit like Mr Einsteins spacetime idea The entire universe from start to end is a 4D object and we see 3D "slices" through this 4D thingy This 4d object is itself motionless or changeless and just sits there "being" We get the impression of change because we only see one slice-at-a-time if you get my drift The universe is by this definition the set of things-that-happen there is no past or future and no freewill Our decision to watch Daria is not "truly free" because "us watching daria" is in the set of all-things-that-happen and is therefore unchanging and unchangeable.
Paul gate wrote in message ...
I don't agree that four dimensional spacetime makes human will an illusion; and, as you'd expect, I certainly don't go for predestination! I think both these views are palpably contrary to human experience and to common sense.
Human beings are *part* of nature. A special part, but still part. Human beings do have free will. The free choices of human beings form part of the cosmos, and contribute to this particular potential reality becoming actual, rather than another one.
To try (deperately) to make that clearer without getting tied up in philosophical language, or spending 18kb defining my terms: we *contribute* to "all-things-that-happen" by making this potential element of all-things-that-happen (watching Daria on Sunday morning) a reality rather than that potential element (staying in bed until noon on Sunday).
Viewed from eternity, all time is the present moment. But *we* live inside spacetime, and our experience is that days follow each other, rather than being all present at once, and that to get from one place to another we have to pass through other points in space; and so we do have choices to make (a lot happend in that semi-colon, I know). The fact that someone (God) can see what decisions we have already made does not mean that they stop being our decisions. If you watch a football match on videotape (and this is a weak analogy beacuse you watch it later, and you watch it in linear time, not all-at-once) and then tell a player that he had no choice about which way to pass when the tackle came in because you saw it on the tape, is he going to stop training?
I'll shut up now! I don't want to try to give a two year ontology course online, and it wouldn't be a pretty sight watching me try! 8-)
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote in message ...
Ok i can`t say you`re definatly wrong But Just take a look at the track record of common sense
The earth is flat stationary and at the centre of the universe An objects natural state is at rest Rotten meat turns into magots Things fall straight down, allways
mmm not very reliable is it?
We are part of nature and our illusions are part of nature also
But there is no evidence that the potential element exists What happens, happens, If you repeat the startup conditions of the scenario precisely...then the same thing happens again. If it doesn`t there must be a "difference" in the two scenarios.
I can see what you are saying.....but Simply because we can`t see round the illusion or that life is better if we accept it at face value... does not mean that it is the most accurate "truth" there is
Remember that the footballer`s training is part of the "things that happen" its not a "choice" ;-)
The trouble is our language drips in the supposed uncertainty for instance
1 If the footballer trains he will win 2 If the footballer lounges aboout smoking cigs he will lose
The assumption is that the footballer CAN take either path only one path "is real" however so why attach any reality to the other It is not real, was not real, never will be real, so is unreal, a phantasm, purely a product of imagination.
No, go ahead, I will only complain if you make me look real stoopid :-)
Paul gate wrote in message ...
illusion;
both
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Paul.
- If I put my hand in the fire it will hurt. - If I take my hands off the steering wheel and close my eyes while driving it's dangerous. - If I agree to have an operation to remove my leg then the day after the operation I will have not have that leg; the week after, I will not have that leg; the month after, I will not have that leg... - If I'm very hungry, and I'm given a plate of food and a phone book, eating will ease my hunger more quickly than reading the phone book would.
Common sense seems to work okay there!
My examples relate to choice (for which free will is necessary); yours seem, to me at least, to be examples of failed scientific theories rather than of common sense related to free will as we experience it in daily living.
But it doesn't follow that nature is (no more than) part of our illusions.
*contribute*
Now, as you're sitting there reading this, do you believe that you can either reply to it or not reply to it? Can you do both (ie reply to it and not reply to it)? Then, in this case, there are two potentials and only one of them will become actual. I can't see that one of those potentials is only a fantasy (as you say later); but I agree that only one of them can become actual.
You can't repeat the startup conditions precisely. Not only because Heisenberg's uncertainty principle means that at a quantum level you'll never guarantee identical conditions, but also because the second run is later in the time than the first one; it is also the second one, which the first one wasn't. <g>
Yes, but difference does not imply determinism!
have
(a
see
to
to
I'd go further, because I believe in absolute truth rather than relative "truths." Something is true because it is true, not because it is useful. The thrill of philosophy is in using our minds to get closer to the truth; and I'd never advocate "taking things at face value" if by that you mean abdicating thought!
I do think GE Moore's essay "In Defence of Common Sense" is a great antidote to the ivory tower mode of philosophy, and to the intellectual snobbery that suggests, "If *most people* think something then it *can't* be true; only we philosophers can possibly get it right." (I'm not accusing you of this, Paul).
It's part of the things-that-happen *because* it's a choice. When Jane quit the track team, was that her decision? I think so. (Yes, it's a fictional example from a cartoon: but we don't have a Great Cartoonist In The Sky making our decisions for us. I believe in God, but not god the puppet-master!).
Too simple. If the footballer chooses to turn up at training, he can train with the team; if he chooses to stay in bed while the team train, he can't train with the team. Whether he trains with the team or not is one of the factors that will determine whether he will win or not; that particular factor depends on his choice.
No, it's potential until his choice makes it actual. Don't confuse "real" with "actual", and don't look at things only in the past tense, that confuses things. As I said, we do live in spacetime, and experience linear time in which, from our point of view (and action) there is a future and a present as well as a past!
I'd do everything I could to avoid that. We're talking philosophy here, and (as you know) that means love of knowledge. Making the other guy look stupid isn't philosophy, it's egotism!
My, I enjoy this. Isn't this a great newsgroup? Where else would you get a discussion like this arising under a "Readership survey" heading! Perhaps Daria attracts people who think....
Martin.
I have written far to much Your gonna have to chop chunks out of this sucker or were going to get lost soon
Martin Sylvester wrote in message ...
Yep, i gave some examples of common sense failing, to illustrate the point that using common sense is not reliable Common sense is not, useless, it can be a very good way to make sense of the world.....but it is very unreliable
But in all the above examples we can choose to replace our unfortunate hero with an agent that has no freewill and get the same results. That is, if the agent can feel hunger and pain and can count :-)
Agreed, i think (uncertain)
This is at the centre of our discusion i feel I could sum it up like this
Am i justified in believing that their are two "possible" pathways into the future, if I can only have experience of one of those pathways?
am i justified in believing that something that did not happen, could have happened?
How could you justify such beliefs logicaly?
Where is the evidence that it could have happened? What sort of thing would you use as evidence for a possibility
Ha ha ha ok you got me :-) uncertainty principle,golly! Ok in reality an exact copy of a "situation" is the "situation itself" Therefore the idea of an exact copy is meaningless Ie if it is an exact copy, then it is the origonal. I hope you`ve seen that barb in the conclusion, though... If the idea of another situation, being the same, in all important respects, but however being a "different stuation" is meaningless, then the idea of the origonal situation doing something different from what it did, is allso meaningless (it is entirely unverifiable)
If stuation "C" is a copy if situation "O" then both MUST have the same outcome because "C" and "O" must be the same identities (see above) ...or in english, "C" and "O" are the same "thing"
How can one identity have two mutualy exclusive properties?
Most of my arguments so far rely on a causual world view without full causuality they make no sense whatsover (ha ha yeah i know :-)) However without reasons for things happening, freewill makes no sense either Can the reason you are free be that you are random? Can something that has no cause, be anything other than random? are "random" and "free" any more synonomous than "determined" and "free"
Think about maps for a moment If you ask for directions from a passerby, he will tend to give you a list of instructions like "turn left, turn right,walk 500 yards ect ect" now this is fine for the situation because those instructions will work from your present position, and they give you all the information you need to get to your destination However they only work from one position so the information is not true in all cases (of position that is) A map however is true in all cases of position, its truth value in the world is greater than the list of instructions because it is more general purpose than the list Ie it is truer in a larger number of possible situations. But it is still only true for "one time" though, so it is not yet a completly general purpose map because it relies on the user being at a particular time Now imagine a "hyper map" which not only had validity for any position you occupied but also for any moment you occupied. so it would give you the PRESENT street map and position of railway stns. ect, so long as you entered the correct time. Now, the usefullness of a map like that is completly independent of the "position" of the user. Ie at ANY time and ANY place it will be true. So its truth value is yet higher than a normal map.
sorry please bear with me
Now, we live inside space and we must allways be facing a direction at every moment, but we do not consider our direct observation that the newsagents is on front of us to be more true than the picture we gain by inspecting our map. We reason that the newsagent is in front of us because we are here and facing that way We cannot see the bakery behind the newsagent...but we reason that we cannot see it because of our position, not because it is not realised Similarly you could argue that while "within saturday" you cannot see the events of sunday because they are outside your present positions "horizon", not because they are not "real" we check on our hyper map and it confirms that we should not be able to see the events of sunday while "inside saturday" ;-)
more i`m afraid
Saying that the days all follow each other and are not in the same moment is a bit like saying that the houses are all "one after another" in a town We see the houses as one after another because we are in the town In reality the houses are simply adjacent to each other, not one after another. The "one after another" description is a product of our position It describes our perceptions of the situation perfectly, but lacks objectivity as a desription of the situation. ie it is not necesarily true
Maps of the surface of the earth have to be drawn by withdrawing from the surface in terms of perspective, maps of events in spacetime mean that we have to withdraw from or look onto spacetime from the outside. We can manage the visualisation leap for a normal map easily, because we can imagine withdrawing from a flat surface (weve done it before), however withdrawing from spacetime itself is not such a common experience:-) So we don`t *feel* that spacetime maps represent anything real
Surely it does though?
The problem is there is no way to ascertain "truth" You can spot "untruth" quite quickly if its specific, but "truth" is impossible to, verify totally, So we are forced to question everything so that our truths get more and more "truish", but they can they never reach dizzying heights of "TRUTH"
Do you think that many philosophers allow themselves to be coaxed into ivory towers, whose only object is to find a difference between their view and the accepted view?
I have a good freind whose position on God may interest you She says that although God is not created by our belief in him, He "needs" us to love him, and can only act in the world through humans He is vulnerable to us... just in the same way we are vulnerable to those we are in love with.
I am not religious, myself, but i found the idea touching.
A simple situation... A stick of Dynamite explodes
(one second before detonation) We have no information about the detonation We describe our state as uncertain about the explosion We think it may explode but are not sure.
However, is the world uncertain about the explosion?
Is it not the case that we are simply "in the wrong second" to experience the explosion? If we were in the neighbouring second we would know all about the explosion! Is not this "next second" as much a part of the world as the one we are presently in?
It is just like being in the wrong place!!! the explosion happens independently of our position in spacetime but we can only see it from certain places in spacetime We would be just as uncertain about the explosions realness if we were in the wrong place.
I think its great I have found this ng a LOT freindlier than the usual The conversations seem to be so relaxed... like a breath of fresh air
Many thanks
Paul gate wrote in message ...
The fact that you say this means you accept that the agents in my examples do have free will! <smirk>
one
only
Two or more; yes.
It depends.
Inter alia, by the evolution of the concept "if". I'm sure you know that "if" is used often in formal logic, as well as in everyday conversation.
You can't ask for evidence for things which by their nature do not generate evidence!
Inference, not evidence. Everyone else who's had a leg removed has not had that leg once it's removed. So I infer that if I had chosen to have a leg removed I wouldn't have had that leg the day after, the week after.... But since I chose not to have the leg removed, I can't show you the stump to *prove* what would have happened. (BTW, everyone, this is only an example, no need to be concerned about the health of my legs!)
In a discussion like this, surely if either postion needs the support of evidence it's the one which is contrary to common sense and everyday experience? Show me yours! 8-)
:-))
either
In this context: free (not equals) random (not equals) determined.
[snip map analogy]
objectivity
But the fact that you own a map of Grimsby does not mean that I have no choice about which route to take.
impossible to,
Agree, if you mean we'll never tabulate all truth.
view
I don't think Moore was saying that common sense should be the only tool in the phisopher's toolkit!
happen"
quit
Sounds pretty much orthodox to me (but then, I'm a Catholic)! To avoid growing a religion sub-thread <g>, I'll just say there are some links in my website on what Catholics believe.
[snip explosion analogy]
independently
spacetime
But if the man who was meant to light the fuse chose not to... Causality and free will are not mutually exclusive.
I'd accept, say, that someone brought up to believe that (s)he'd had a raw deal, that conscience is just another word for sentimentality, and that everyone steals all the time but only some get caught, would be more likely to steal than someone without those damaging assumptions. But, unless acting under compulsion, (s)he can still choose what to steal, or whether in this instance to steal this charity box from this kid on this street now.
Hear, hear. I don't agree with determinism, understood as excluding free will (and I don't think you live your life by it) but it's certainly a respectable philosophical position. It's also wrong! <g>
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote in message ...
Hey, that`s cheating you are using my own arguments against themselves Make up your own arguments, honestly :-)
You are going to have to stretch the logical concept of IF quite a long way indeed, to arrive at "could have happened but didn`t"
But this doesn`t infer free will you hand me your discarded leg, i shrug and tell you not to be a silly automaton Alternatively... You show me your perfectly connected leg and i shrug and tell you not to be a silly automaton IMHO You have to show that you are actualy free to do the things that you "don`t do" Its impossible of course nobody can show this And nobody can do the things that they do not do to demonstrate their supposed "freedom"
Feeling like you can do the things you do not do is one thing It might be delusioned...perhaps... ..Its how i feel as well btw but the facts are that you CANNOT do the things you do not do, you do not have that freedom because the action it implies is a contradiction
Without the ability to do what is not done, what is freewill? Is it simply the ability to do what is done? isn`t that the same ability that a washing machine displays?
"oh oh!" Puff of purple smoke. the crowd gets restless A man points and shouts "He`s gone!" the smoke disapates the crowd gasps "And he left no evidence" said a wise voice
I think we`d better leave evidence out of this I did not for a moment think that by asking you for evidence i was invitting similar attacks on my position ;-)
i will be more carefull in future:-)
Its hard for me to see how phenomenma can be neither determined nor random and if it is either then its not free.
Actualy you have a good point here when i started on that rambling map analogy i had a clear vision Of all the stuff i was going to show, but it all got lost, and went limp, sorry But I now remember what the main point was
If you are positioned before an event (in time) then you are in the wrong place (in spacetime) to percieve it. The event has an existence, but the information about its existence is not available to you. to some extent this property of the world can be seen somewhat in that there is no universal "now" for events to be"created" in Differently moving observers observe different sets of events as happening simultaneously they experience different "fallout" from the march of the present There is underlying reality that informs their different perspectives but they can disagree about what is happening "now" and the order in which events happen
I`m not shure here, i`ll go and have a think about it.....err (paces room) I think the problem is identifying truth as truth even if you`ve "got it" We may have all truth but we could never know we had all truth
Paul gate wrote in message ...
LOL!
information
No, from spacetime, *will have* existence (and therefore no information {note 1} *because* the event that "will" happen is merely potential until it does); from eternity, *has*. In this matter the point of view has an ontological weight, not merely informational implications!
(note 1) I know we are both oversimplifying: we do actually have some information about potential future events, perhaps mostly from inference. See my "leg off" example. (Oh, that sounds rude; "Leg off!" he cried.)
You're a rebel, and no mistake! <approving nod> You started with ontology and now you're moving on to epistemology. It's generally done the other way round, you know! <bg>
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote:<snip long post about ontology and epistemology>
Is anyone else thoroughly confused by all this? :)
Alli
On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:43:28 -0800, "endless, nameless" wrote:
Thank you, thank you, thank you, a million times thank you. Straight C students, like me, have to read this newsgroup too. All these long words and big ideas make my brain hurt.
- I once shot a man just to watch him die. Then I got distracted, and I missed it. -Dave Foley, the Kids In the Hall.
Happydude wrote:
I'm an A* student in a lot of my classes, and it's making*my* brain hurt! :)
Alli
No pain, no gain.
However, just remember: It's only philosophy. It's mostly bullshit anyway. There are some web sites with some pretty good philosophy jokes to help you put it in the proper perspective.
Bob
Is "A* student" the same as "a star student"?
BTW: totally offtopic but possibly of relevance to some Daria fans: If anyone here is a Discordian or Erisian, they should check out <URL: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/omar.html> for some news. (Also reachable by a link from the Stop Press on my homepage.)
-Shez.
Shez wrote:
Yes. Or something. 'A*', as in what is above 'A'.
Alli
endless, nameless wrote in message ...
It *is* quite a debate, isn't it! And unless you have in mind each previous post, then later posts will be next to unintelligible. (I hear you: "What do you mean 'next to?'")
Paul and I have been snipping for brevity rather than preserving & expanding for clarity. Paul & I have been more or less following the flow of ideas, but I acknowledge that this isn't easy stuff.
It would be possible to make it less confusing: by snipping less, and spelling things out more. Only trouble is, the posts would then be at least fifteen times longer - no, Alli, put that drain cleaner down, I'm not proposing to do this! <g>
Sorry if Paul and I have got ourselves into a discussion that's boring everyone else witless. At least it's well-mannered debate. Perhaps we need to find someone willing to host alt.tv.daria.off-topic.philosophy! 8-)
Paul: want to end the discussion, to limit collateral damage to others on atd <g> whose tolerance may be wearing thin? (I'm not meaning you, Alli, so much as those who may be about to post "Why don't you guys shut up?" messages.)
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote in message ...
I suppose we really are on the wrong side of the "Daria_|_Other stuff" fence I haven`t seen many Daria episodes deal with ontological implications of special relativity :-) have you? Is It possible we have drifted a bit off topic eh? ;-)
The conversations on this ng do seem to drift around loosely, i think thats part of its charm, but perhaps "drifting" is forgivable while "powersteaming" is a bit inconsiderate IMHO It was endless nameless`s "personal philosophy" post that set off our conversation....Its your own fault Alli...look at the monster you have created :-)
On a serious note, though, if you feel we may be irritating fellow users then i think we should stop ammeadiatly
It would be a pity though, i am enjoying myself! (grin) WWDD (ive worked out what that means now)
Paul gate wrote in message ...
Well, now you come to mention, I can't recall one. Isn't that starnge? Of course, there are a few episodes I've not yet seen...
created :-)
Alli, aka "endless, nameless", aka Pandora? 8-)
I think there's a strong possibility!
Ditto!
Hmm. Not sure.
"Next, on Sick Sad World: are philosophers taking over our newsgroups for their own private barroom discussions?" <g>
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote in message ...
Pandora`s post ;-) Have youb heard about about the terrible malign forces she once unleashed on the world by riding an exercise bicycle?
Martin Sylvester wrote:
I read most of the posts, but my short/non-existant attentionspan refused to let me read all of the discussion. :) Most of it has been going way over my head - I don't know much about this sort of thing!
LOL! Yeah, I can see how it would be easier to understand, but I'd never be able to read it all! :)
Hey, it's OK. Noone has to read it if they don't want to. :)
Ah, but then you'd just start talking about Daria again. I think there's some unwritten rule about newsgroups, that says that no one thread can have more than 5 posts that are a) on-topic, or b) relevant in any way to the subject header!
Alli
Martin Sylvester of NRCDT
Ive had no problem with it, I just close my eyes and hit the space bar a few times until the next message appears.
I just checked, and "unintelligent" is next to unintelligible in my dictionary.
-Shez
This all seems very Tralfamadorian to me. In Slaughterhouse-5, right, the Tralfamadorians see in four dimensions and so see all different times at once, like one would look at a stretch of mountains.... and the idea is that everythinh that happens has to happen at that point in time, that it has happened at that point in time, it always will happen at that point in time- like time isn't linear, like continually heading from one experience to another, but they experience everything at once.
"All rather confusing really" as Seagoon would say.
Dagny
Visit the Parsley Firefly http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697 Monty Python, Spike Milligan, Marx Brothers and More!
"One must have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you still have chaos in you." Friedrich Nietzsche
Eccles9697 wrote in message ...
Wow! somebody else read that thing As i understood it the tralfamadorians were free in time, in the same way as we are free in space. they could choose a moment in the same way that we could choose a place to sit, they could avoid moments in the same way we avoid a barking dog or a uneven paving stone and they could return "again and again" to any moment they wished. You could imagine their world as a space of moments that they were free to roam about in. They experience all moments at the same time, in the same way that we experience all space at the same time. They are in one moment-at-a-time but they are aware of all the other moments around them yep i think spacetime is a bit tralfamadorian as well
That was one hell of a book I wonder if one of my "freinds" has stolen it yet
Cheers
So living is really a process of recollection, or like re-watching a video maybe. And when we've remembered everything we die, a bit like returning a rented video to the shop I suppose. Being able to hire another one would be reincarnation.
If this theory is true, then I'm suffering from amnesia, as I can't figure out how to do this life thing at all. If life is like replaying a video, then I think my remote is faulty.
-Shez.
Shez wrote:
Sort of. It's a bit like, if someone invented a time travel machine, and we went back, say, 2000 years, then the people from 2000 years ago that saw us might have written it down and we might have found what they wrote before we went back in time.... it's sort of related to that, but that's another part of it. It's like, we can't change what we do because it's already happened, but it's in our future. But also, it's the past because it's happened..... so I think maybe it's possible to discover 'past lives' in the future, but I don't think anyone's ever tried doing that.....
I think my tape's broken....
Alli
In article , "endless, nameless" wrote:
Ever had a dream where a set of events occurs, and the next day you actually see those events, As They Appeared In Your Dream? I remember this happening to me when I was 10, I'm sure it's happened 2 or 3 more times...
[email] wrote:
Premonitions, yeah. It's strange. There seems to be a sort of curse in my family that grants us with those.....my dad predicted his mother's death several days before it happened, and, more horribly, we later found out that she did too, which isn't so great because I don't particularly *want* to know when I'm going to die, and I've had those dreams too.
Alli
On Fri, 04 Dec 1998 15:22:58 -0800, "endless, nameless" wrote:
I would hate knowing when I am going to die. It would suck if a reliable source told me I was going to die on, say June 12th 2023. It would be even worse if someone told me I was going to die on June 12th but did'nt tell me a year. Every June 12th would be a nightmare. Every May would be spent getting my affairs in order. every June 13th would be a party. I think I would go insane after a few years. I wouldn't care if I die then, I'd be invisible.
- I once shot a man just to watch him die. Then I got distracted, and I missed it. -Dave Foley, the Kids In the Hall.
[email] (CrtoonDude) writes:
No; because they're predestined to NOT kill and rape hundreds of people. They are going to get into heaven because they lived a good life, just like they were predestined to.
If someone did kill and rape hundreds of people, they would go to hell, but it would have been predestined that they would have done that and then gone to hell.
Doesn't quite work like that. . .
CrtoonDude wrote in message ...
everything
God
heaven
course
say
I don't think the Calvinist philosophy fits Daria at all. Daria, above all else, is a thinking person, a brain. A thinking person, in my experience, prefers to assume--must assume--that there really is such a thing as free will. If God (assuming of course that he exists) didn't intend you to use your brain to consider various courses of action and then implement them then why did he give you a brain at all? Just to torment you over things you can think about but never change? Could God be that big a jerk?
Right now Daria seems to be more interested in the existentialist point of view. This is partly evidenced in the existentialist writers referenced in the show. If we're going to talk about Daria's philosophy then I think we'd have to be talking about Existentialism rather than Calvinism or Taoism.
I generally prefer not to talk about philosophy at all, particularly as relates to religion. That's a good way to get into a bar fight but it usually isn't very helpful in coming to understand the way the world works. Talk to other people, observe, collect data, but you have to draw your own conclusions. Ultimately you have to figure it out for yourself. Anyone who loudly asserts that they have it all figured out--doesn't.
My own personal philosophy? Haven't decided yet. Still working on it. Current operating philosophy?: Party like there's no tomorrow but minimize property damage. (That includes NO drugs.) Just have fun. And thinking is fun too, isn't it? Couldn't Daria agree with that?
Maybe you CAN discuss philosophy and other brainy stuff in a newsgroup about the brainy chick. If you don't mind my saying so, this is an pretty exceptional group. I've been in some interesting discussion groups, one or two, where there were intelligent people who could discuss things calmly and rationally without flaming or ad hominem attacks. When it comes together the result is--magic. A.T.D. has the potential to become just that kind of discussion group, if it isn't already. So tell all your brainy friends to come to alt.tv.daria and talk about philosophy, literature, movies, science, sociology, geography, whatever--and, oh yeah, that girl we know.
Bob
Is God a jerk? No. Is God a prankster? Yes. Do you have a third or fourth nipple? Prank. Have you lost a limb due to leprosy? Prank. Do you have webbed toes? Prank. Appendix burst? Prank.
There will always be a few bad apples (or should I say boooooiiiiinnnggg apples), thankfully they are few and far between.
That girl? Marlo Thomas? Oh wait... What's her name? Dara? Dana?
- I once shot a man just to watch him die. Then I got distracted, and I missed it. -Dave Foley, the Kids In the Hall.
Happydude wrote:
I knew it!!!
Alli
endless, nameless o writes:
You have webbed toes?
Shez wrote:
Semi-webbed. I did know someone who had totally webbedtoes, but mine aren't that bad! My fingers are a bit webbed as well, noticeably, and I'm told it looks 'gross' when I stretch out my hands, but it doesn't cause a problem, so I'm not bothered. :)
Alli
R. K. Henry of Campbell County On-Line
What's the difference? Concussion can work wonders for your understanding of the world.
-Shez.
In article ,
want
How about if I said- "I live in ignorance. I've consorted with prostitutes from the Proletarian Sector, and conspired with Emanuel Goldstein. I used to hate Big Brother."
Can I then stay and ask "What's Calvinism?"
CrtoonDude of AOL
What's wrong with denouncing it?
I trust you're referring to Calvinism as in "Calvin & Hobbes", otherwise I would have to disagree, as ISTR it's associated with the work ethic.
-Shez.
In article ,
want
I don't know, Calvanism, to my understanding, preaches about self destiny and the like. Daria, to me, seems like a person who does not bleive in destiny, and that people can do almost anything they want as long as they get a little smarter and the like.