its ture

I accept and belive that its ture and its happening.If not why do u think that they would come up with the idea?Lets think abt it.

[i]Originally posted by t.tech
I accept and belive that its ture and its happening.If not why do u think that they would come up with the idea?Lets think abt it. [In agreart man there is great power]

They also came up with the idea for the movie starship troopers, but I don't see earth being attacked by aliens and extraterrestrial starships circling our planet either :D. So saying that the Matrix movies might be true because someone came up with the idea for them is a tad farfetched if you ask me. There still is that human trait called 'imagination' :p.

what the hell is ture?

Originally posted by Terikan
what the hell is ture?

I think he meant 'true'. At least that's what I assumed when I read his post.

In t.tech's defence, I think I need to quote William Blake;

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd,...everything possible to be believed in is an image of truth..... Man by his reasoning power can only compare and judge of what he has already perceived."

its just a movie. even if there was something similar going on, then it probably wouldn't be exactly the same. unfortuneately, there is not actually any way to prove that or not

so your saying that since the brothers created the idea that there is a martix...then that must mean that there ahs to be one?? i think you need to see a phsyciatrist

lol, you said 'martix'.

Originally posted by toymachine970
i think you need to see a phsyciatrist

Me? I don't think a 'phsyciatrist' could really help me! LOL (in both meanings, :D)

I didn't say there *has* to be one- William Blake did. (arguably) In case you haven't noticed, I'm not William Blake.

'Is the Matrix real'? Well, maybe, maybe not. Personally, I've never seen people walking around in the kind of threads the rebels wear, but that's just me.

So if you saw someone walking around in a coat like Neo's with cool glasses on, or a girl in PVC with a mobile, that would convince you? LOL

who else wears clothes like that?

Originally posted by Truth

I didn't say there *has* to be one- William Blake did. (arguably) In case you haven't noticed, I'm not William Blake.

Can you prove that?

Originally posted by BackDoor
Can you prove that?

LOL, no!

It's William Blake!!!!

...I might add that though Hume teaches that though we have seen innumerously that a stone when let go falls to earth we shouldn't assume it will always do so...
...the common man will say "tell me the chances that'll happen in my lifetime"....
Though alot of abstract ideas can be true or proven someday, the reason why we dun is 'cause there's only so much time...

Originally posted by Oracle2.0
It's William Blake!!!!

(Dr Evil laugh) Mu ha ha ha! Mu ha ha ha!

And also Macleod, there are so few people willing to give up that much time and energy.

yeah, well, I'm really Drew Barrymore (But don't tell any one!)

Hume teaches that though we have seen innumerously that a stone when let go falls to earth we shouldn't assume it will always do so...

Posted by McLeod

It's that idea that makes the world a so much interesting place. Because thta fact can be explored in every way of our daily life;

Just because we've always been a police man doesn't mean we will be forever

Just because we never won the lottery doesn't mean that we will never win.

But, HEY!
What is that idea again?
It's again the problem of do we live in a pre-programmed world or don't we.

Because if we do, then there are no odds. Every situation has only one odd, only one possible event.

I belive that Truth, I mean William Blake (LOL), did not finish the sentence:
"everything possible to be believed in is an image of" a possible "truth".

We know that if we believe in something thast desn't make it true....ask Morpheus!

Also, there are somethings that we know that there is no way of them to be another way.

We know that 1+1 will always equal to 2.

This question of is the matrix real it's very frustrating, at least to me. Because it's something that seems like it can very well be the Truth, but...HOW IN THE HELL DO WE PROVE IT?

Like I've been saying, if I see people walking around in the expensive, sexy outfits the rebels where, I might start to believe...

But then again, just because you don't see people in expencive rebel outfits it doesn't mean that they do not exist.....

Maybe, maybe not. My real conversion will happen when i have something to me like what happened to neo in M1

Originally posted by BackDoor
Truth, but...HOW IN THE HELL DO WE PROVE IT? [/B]

LOL- you called?

Well, that's the biggest problem of all isn't it? How can you prove existence without being able to step outside of it to compare it to something? We can't prove the matrix theory without having experienced being in the Real World, which defeats the purpose a bit!

We can theorize and quote as much as we want, but we can neither prove nor disprove the theory. At least until one of us is rescued, and then comes back to tell the rest of us :D

A lot of people put too much belief in scientists and philosophers, but if you look hard enough you can find a quote to agree with anything!

It's true! I mean it! From the bottom of my heart...
It's true!....Without you I would fall...apart....







lol
:D

what you talkin about

Originally posted by BackDoor
[B]It's true! I mean it! From the bottom of my heart...
It's true!....Without you I would fall...apart....

Wow Backdoor! I never knew how you really felt! It's so sweet of you to say................................lol :D

Can I believe me eyes? Ladies n gentlemen here we have it-the first ever Love confession here on this very forum n thread! Truth he's trying to tell ya something here! A little support guys!! Whoo!! <Clap Clap>





....Hope this isn't spammin' or anything :p

Hmmmm........I think not MacLeod- he thinks I'm a guy! But really, I'm very flattered- ha ha ha! LOL! :D

Quoting:
Hmmmm........I think not MacLeod- he thinks I'm a guy! But really, I'm very flattered- ha ha ha! LOL!
End of quote

So....my theories were right....:)

But it's beautiful isn't it? :)
(my post)

What? LOL! And what was the theory?

-That u're a girl!!

...Some way to test a theory. Definitely got marks from me for courage-way to go BD! Hmm now if that reaches the right observers...expect a "wake up Backdoor-knock knock Backdoor" on your comp real soon! :D


Oops but I think we've gone WAY off topic...

Defintely off topic! Somehow, I think I've been tricked- but why didn't you just ask Backdoor? :D

I think it's dangerous for people to actually believe The Matrix is a reality. Therefore, i am hereby creating the idea that The Matrix is just a movie. So it has to be TURE. =D

But is that really 'ture'? If you follow that anything you could imagine is a vision of the truth, we'd have a lot of contradictions! I know I was the one who put that idea out there, but..........it's just not logically feaslible!
Why is it so dangerous to believe in the matrix as a valid idea? If you look at it at the bare bones, it has a lot of resonance with many different religions. Is it dangerous to beleive in those too? Of course, anything can be dangerous when it's taken too far, but that due to the person, rather than the belief system.

Well, at least now we got something solid to talk about...

...I like that:all religions are perfect:people aren't. Thinking is nice:deciding you should do something (A LOT of something) with it is bad. I guess that's a point the philosopher's made:the problems they created arose only because people couldn't take what they were making them think. They themselves didn't do anything wrong:it was the people who couldn't take those ideas that went too far.

My point? No killing or suicide bombings or ANYTHING nasty because you believe in the Matrix (or anything else) strongly please ladies n gentlemen! :D

To reiterate what was said... you cannot judge a religion based on the way it is practised by it's people.... We all know that people have committed incredible human injustice in the name of religion.

The Matrix is advocating violence, the violence is merely for the action of the movie.

More importantly i think that it shows that the pathway to understanding is paved with broken glass. Nothing comes easy, everything is a struggle, not a physical one but a mental struggle..... and the enemy is not the other person... you are your own worst enemy.

very interesting discussion...
films like matrix make these topics up
about our existence...
about man life and universe...

the reason being is that as humans we will always strive towards understanding the true nature of our existence... the matrix kind of teases our imagination and our minds.

the w.bros knew this thats y matrix is a success and most ppl like it.

"choice" is wat makes us different from the rest of the living beings. we decide how we live our life, wat ideas we follow. wat we believe is the cause of our existence. and choice is wat makes us live

Originally posted by MacLeod
-That u're a girl!!

...Some way to test a theory. Definitely got marks from me for courage-way to go BD! Hmm now if that reaches the right observers...expect a "wake up Backdoor-knock knock Backdoor" on your comp real soon! :D


Oops but I think we've gone WAY off topic...

Okay okay,

I'll explain myself.
It was no test. I said that because I wanted.
But, I had my suspicions that she was indeed a girl. Based on her language, avatar, and other stuff....
...without knowing it, I confirmed them.

Lol....guess I could have asked....but it would sploil the fun

NO. I don't think it's choice that makes us diferent.
Actually, I think that, in some way, we really don't have much of a choice.....I believe in that Big Formula that would predict the whole universe.
Ow well...at least some part of me believes.....;)

What makes us diferent is.......who knows?
It's an eternal question!
"Is it the smell?"
lol
We, in our nature have something that ables us to do things that should not be possible, see things in a way no other animal can, we invent new ways of living life....we are what moves this planet!...
...Into salvation, or into caos....

Is it true, the matrix?
If you believe it, then yes it's true.
My God does not depend on your god.
Same is saying "My beliefes don't require any followers".

And you know why? Why my spoon has nothing to do with your spoon?
Because, there is no spoon!
And you can bend yourself how you want and how you find better.
Know what I mean?


:)

Strangely, I do know what you mean!

(LOL- I've never had anyone think I was girl by the way I spoke- okay wrote- before :D)

Backdoor- you are completely right- I know we've had this conversation before, but there is no such thing as free will and total choice. I believe that fate is a driving force of this universe.

if it was true wouldnt they try to hide it? dimwit. ok how about you go jump off a sky scraper and try to fly, and come and tell me about it. then i might start to believe.

If that's all you're got to say on the matter TCD how about you don't bother in future? There's no need to call anyone names- this is a forum, a place where we discuss things, okay? I f you don't like it- go away.

If you had any understanding of the idea (or the movie) at all- you would already know that people still plugged into the matrix don't have any special abilities like Neo, Morpheus and the rest. No-one is saying that normal people can fly- we're just discussing the possibilty.

Whether you think the whole idea is just a movie or not is not the point, but a little more tolerance for other people opinions wouldn't go amiss.

But if the matrix was real, with an attitude like yours, I don't think anybody would bother wasting their time saving you. (bit harsh, I know, but come on! If you don't like what we're talking about- don't join in!)

Aw...touche folks! :p strange from ur other posts backdoor i had the impression u believed in a God...why believe in fate now since they clash somewhat?

n naz...sadly though wat u say is absolutely right i have complete fools for friends that say the lines in the movie are amateurish and gibberish, the philosophies rubbish, and the action scenes(like Neo flying around at least thrice) are utter bull...they either can't focus on the point or cannot stand the idea of thinking too deeply of the philosophical natures of our existance...why Boo to you out there Philistines!!! :p

Why can't you believe in both fate and God? Most religious people belive that God 'has a plan' somewhat. Isn't that what fate is?

backdoor, wat u are saying is that everythings relative. that there is no truth....

its the same as saying evryones right....

its not possible, there can only be one true answer, like 1+1=2
if its not 2 then its wrong.

faith and belief is two different things.
faith is blind following, following something without real evidence or proof

belief is something definite, an established fact that no one disagree something that goes with out nature.

when i said choice, wat i meant is that we have freedom to choose wat we want. animals dont have this, they only follow ther natural instinct.

humans can live in a perfect world, or make chaos. its the choice.

Lol naz

You are just saying that what I said is right.

Who invented math? We! We determined that 1+1=2
It's an assumption.

It the more relative thing you can imagine.

Example:

I say that in a language I have created, zeith+sikra=netroknith

Who are you to argue? What fundaments do you have to say "It's wrong"?

I created it, I say it's true, I believe it's true, so it is true. To me.

My beliefes depend only on me.
If I believe something is this way, then, to me, IT REALLY IS THAT WAY.

To you it might be other way, but not to me.

Naz, you cannot speak of a universal Truth, because you con't know the Truth. Therefore you cannot say what is right and what is wrong. It woulf be arrogant o fyou to say so.

Just because we admit that 1+1=2 that does not mean it is ultimatly true. Infact, it was something that we created. It's simbology. It really has no meaning. It simbolises an idea.

Sorry Truth-I was under the impression that fate was an extra-theological entity...
And naz Backdoor has a point there. Language and the vagaries of the universe has rendered the uniqueness of Truth meaningless. Say if I from a tropical country say a drink is cold n if u were in say winter and looked at that same drink u'd say its warm. What's the truth? Both! In fact this frustrated Archimedes so much that he declared (i still believe this) that the quintessential and only Truth in the universe was in numbers and equations-"If one cannot put something into numbers then that something is of no meaning at all"...
Backdoor this will mean that yes 1+1 will always be 2, but only in the numerical term. Taking your example. Yi jia Yi deng yi er (in chinese) or satu plus satu seimbang dua (in malay)...they sound different but mean quintessentially the same thing. As we go beyond numbers though I'm afraid the confusion will extend far beyond language differences...

If fate was an 'extra-theological' entity, then God has no control over it. In fact, fate would be as powerful as God. And where would it have come fom? LOL

I think that the ideas of fate and God can be combined, due to the 'plan of God', which is basically fate. You can believe in both, or one, or neither. I don't suppose it matters.

Macleod and Backdoor- you are both right- there is no earthly, constant, non-variable truth. As you both pointed out, the things we assume to be true and static were created by us in order to make sense of the world. As you said, 1+1=2 because we say it does! We have built our whole universe on assumptions like these. But that is all they are, they are not infallible truths.

cool :)

We, the Fantastic Three, agree all with the same thing :)

Now that we got that agreed, let's move on to the next :D

Fate.
I, personaly, don't see fate as an entity. I see it as a concequence.

Fate is a concequence of that Universal Equation, that God used when it created the Universe (can you notice the fusion that I am making from these two very oposite ways of seeing the act of creation? :) ).

Fate results of our existence. Because without us, there would be no fat right? I mean our fate existes because we exist. So it can't be an entity, it's a consequence of Us.

WOW!

Look what I realised right after I wrote that:

Fate exist because we existe right? So it is a consequence of Us....



........SO,

IT is a consequence of OUR choices!!!

Another fundamental paradox?
HUM.....I guess that from that we can only perceive that, for us, the future will always be like a foggy morning.....delined, but always unclear, always full of....possibilities....


Incredible!I actually created my own conter-argument.

Well....coments, I want coments!!
:) :D

Right here for ya Backdoor!
I agree wif ya-we three seem to leave no darn philosophical stone unturned! Hee we're a think-tank...
i believe in Fate more than God-I'd hate to connect a consciousness as responsible for what happens around me. You're right saying Fate and humanity is inter-twined...its a concept we created to give ourselves meaning. Like Voltage or Moment or the sine wave or pi...useful but only to humans. But an interesting thought: if we were to encounter an extra-terrestrial, how much of our concepts will it use-how universal are the laws we made? Can pi be the same (of course, not in language) somewhere else? Not centimeters or celsius mind u, pure, inassailable numbers. Hawking beleives that, with the universe an uncertainty from position to position, this may actually not be so...amazing thought.

It reminds me also of another strange thought: ever saw one of those episodes in sci-fi shows where a bunch of people re-live the same day again and again? the overall theme seems to be that our decisions and actions aren't random...if you knock over the cup the first time around, you'll always knock it over with each repitition...some shows even seem to suggest that things beyond our control are also "scripted"...the "Universe Theory" thing? Hmmm!....

Okay, so if fate is a consequence of 'us', how is it that we are here? Wouldn't our creation mean that we were 'fated' to exist? If we think that everything (or at least a lot of things) happens for a reason, then there is a definite reason for us to be here. By this train of thought, this reason is fate. And if we exist because of it, rather tha it exist because of us, it must have been here first? It is not a product of our existence.

Er...how do i put this? Fate is kinda like time...in our figure of speech time doesn't begin till we are conscious of it. similarly space exists only as far as the material from the Big Bang has reached-the void beyond doesn't count. It's our way of defining things. Similarly fate didn't exist till we realised it did...this being philosophical n not scientific of course. This reminds me of that theory raised to counter people who wanted to put meaning into things like fate and God-why we are here if they didn't exist. It's called "existantialism"..."We know we are here merely because we are here to know we are here"!
Sounds wierd? Take it this way:the universe is not any other way precisely because it is this very way. It is likely that life did not exist or that the universe was actually comprised of what we call from our POV antimatter...but since this happened, it happened. There was no grand plan to set us on this path of existance. I'm still pondering on whether I agree with this or how much...any opinions?
I smell a new topic incoming...:D

Hmmmm.........so are you saying that although all these things like time, fate and space were potential they only exist because we are here to define them?
Isn't that like the old conundrum- if a tree falls in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?

-Right on the money Truth:that's the line I was searching for. Remember existantialism...nothing would truly exist if there was no-one to see it. I sometimes believe in that tree thing myself :D I was wondering what a headache a God (I was thinking of this a LONG time ago) would've had simulating the world-just do it when someone sees like a computer game (or matrix) displaying only needed polygons and presto-saved "RAM"! :D but seriously....
....There's another example like this: If you were taken out of your body as a passive, uninteractive entity and taken to someplace out there in the oblivion of space where there was no matter, no life, no moving particles-no movement at all!-would time pass? Remember we're not including anything like movement or advanced thought in your mind that would mark the passage of time-in fact jus ignore yourself being involved at all. Get my point now? This is Einstein's relativity...proof that nothing can exceed the speed of light because then time would not reach it. There were many more conclusions from this observation...wish I can remember them now. Bakes your noodle, huh? My brain's used to being lasagna by now ho ho!...

That's it! I know I quoted William Blake before, but he said that this reality only exists as it does because we perceive it to be. Very similar to Baudrillard's theories, the 'desert of the real' and the 'copy without an original'. On a small scale, imagine something bad, but small happens. Maybe you break a glass. If you are in a good mood, you shrug it off, clean it up, and think 'these things happen'. Ina bad mood, you get angry, maybe smash some more glasses, and stomp around, shouting. Each of these reactions happen because of how the situation is perceieved. Now imagine on a larger scale, the world is a reflection of ourselves- bad things happen because we think bad things, good things happen externally because we are happy on the inside.
So our reality is only a reflection of ourselves! It's like when people talk about how the media affects the public. 'Pictures of thin girls in magazines cause anorexia', etc. But the media is only reflecting our tastes, opinions and aspirations back at us. We make the world as wee see it.

In order to be happy, it has to come from within, because anything else is just a reflection of the external world.

Now we're cooking wif gas...happiness and order is within; not without. A principle spiritual truth, one that philosophy religion etc are merely tools to reach.
Philosophy 101 people! I wish i knew so much about it though...i never read up the works of such greats or learned who they are. Wish I had time too-bravo bud!

So, we came to the conclusion that indeed fate is a consequence of our existence....so indeed we realise that it is a fundamental paradox...fate, that by definition predetermines things, is in turn predetermined by the same things that it predetermines!

I can put it even in a more scientific way:

Let's take one of those ideal situations, where we trow a ball into the ground, and there are no other forces aplied to it.
We have a law that depermines the ball's fate.
But that law is a consequence of the ball. I mean the law would not exist if the ball didn't exist. Infact, they co-exist.

The law of the bal's movement only exists from the moment that the ball exists ( from the moment it is falling). But in the other way, from the moment that the ball exists, it has a law predicting it's movement, so it cannot exist withou the law ( or fate).

Just to prove that it isn't as a philosophical question as it may seem. It's a paradox that exists in science too.

It's this paradox that says that we cannot predict anything. Because we only know what happens after we have created the situation. We can say that the ball will fall with a guiven speed at a guiven time. But we can't be certain until we actually test it.

So this, to us, gives a sence of predetermination (because fate exists) but also a sence of choice and possibility ( because fate only exists after we have created something, after we made a choice). It's hard to explain, and maybe more hard to understand....but in the end....it makes senc3e I think.

It's like I said, although we are certain that it is a morning, it is still foggy, and we can't see the end of the day....

Hmmmmmmm........I don't know too much about philosophy either Macleod- but it's fun to pretend! :D

And Backdoor- I'm not sure I go along with this theory just yet- I'm still a believer of independent fate. In M1 for example, Neo is fated to be the One, before he's even freed! The Oracle, after placing him firmly on the right path, knows what will happen, she must even know to an extent that Cypher will betray the crew, because without this, Neo would have no opportunity to 'believe'. We might only see things as fate once they've happened, but what about people and things like the Oracle, who can accurately predict (albeit with some construction) the future?

I'm not shure if I believe in this theory or any other that I might have defended.
But when I create a theory I defend it, just to make others fundament arguments that might show to me if it is a valid one or a bad theory...

And as you may observe, many of my points contradict themselves, as a result of my tries of finding some conciliation of arguments that best suits my faiths and ideas.

And the best philosophy is the one we create. Because what others said are what they belived in. And just because they made a book that dosn't makes them right.

So...

...what is the next Topic?

:)

"The best philosophy are the ones we create..." what sweet words! Now where have I heard that before...
Keep trying Backdoor your theory isn't so hard to defend. Truth your question is simple to answer:fate exists because humanity not the people involved exists. Jesus (just a figurative example) existed because the people who needed him existed because the people who predicted hi existed because the people who believed in God existed because God made people...in the end it all boils down to a long cause-and-effect chain that leads to one thing:humanity's existance. Sure the universe was formed out of a remarkable stroke of luck and the planets and nebulas came together to make such wonders-but without sentient life to appreciate and give it all a name it might as well be for naught. After that whatever happens in the world of man is a result of man himself...though so far back that no-one would know. You can feel like drinking coke because you feel hot because you felt like walking out in the sun because you saw a coke poster because somebody once felt on a whim to post the poster at that spot because someone a few hundred years ago thought of a marvelous drink because that someone went to the lengths of promoting that drink etc etc...everything in life falls neatly into place by fate's hand...and only if we are there to recognise it. In the end its just playing with words and technicalities...does it mean anything to say that fate exists with or without man? what definition of fate do we use here?...
Keep it up Backdoor-yours is the true philosopher's approach. Create a theory, question it, refine it, and be open to the Truth. Bravo!

Another little thing- if human life had never developed, does that mean that the 'Big Bang' wasn't part of fates plan? That it wasn't 'supposed' to happen?

....who knows? no-one would've even known there was a Big Bang...there's the paradox.

Well that depends- would the Big Bang have still happened if we weren't here to document it?

Quoting
"The best philosophy are the ones we create..." what sweet words! Now where have I heard that before...
Not quoting anymore

Those words were said by me in that post, it someone else as said them I wasn't aware of....

Hum....about that thing of do things exist if no one is there.....it's tricky.....

...let me think....ow it hurts....lol.....

We have two ways of seeing it:

If we believe that all that we see here isn't a product of our imagination, then, things exist no mather if we are here or not.

A good exampe is, imagine here was only one man left, and that man set a bomb to explode, and then he killed himself.

The bomb would explode even if there was no one to have consciousness of it.

And after that, if god created one more man, that man would be able to see the da,age caused by the bomb.

If we believe that this reality only exists in ou rhead, then thinga only happen if we are there so see them.




hum.....there's something missing in this one.....even I don't like it...but it's all I can think of right now.....

Well there's also the possibilty that there was is, and always will be some sort of base existence. For instance, whether humans were here or not, the Big bang would still have happened, and the universe would still exist. But with the introduction of conscious creatures (us) there is now a secondary level of existence- the things that are man-made. It is this secondary level on which we have any impact, basically reflecting our perceptions and creating the world with our internal expressions. Building on the original foundation, to create and shape our reality to our own (possibly collective) subconcious.

Hmm...those are good point but you're taking my pt a little literally-remember I said "philosophically not scientifically"...The Big Bang and everything existing before man did is scientific and empirical; we're meaning existing in a different sense that holds more meaning to us. It's like this common belief in some places that says "You only die when the whole world forgets about you..." maybe we can call it philosophical; spiritual? 'Makes more sense in the argument this way...

Ahh.............but didn't we say that philosophy is basically a logical study (and explanation) of something? Isn't that exactly what 'science' is too? :D

Heh!...nice try.
There's a difference. Philosophy tackles subjects man knows will never be answers for, whereas Science does things empirically, forming rules and breaking everything down into the form of pure numbers and equations that are inassailable truths. This means the former will never "get to the point" and the latter will be too empirical...too inhuman. Philosophy will thus be abstract with Science literal, though they are very related. In philosophy too the number of man-made or man-biased assumptions also is higher so its almost like religion this way (dangerously so! lol)

But science is a religion also! It's 'rules' are man-made, and exist only because we think they do! They are 'truths' simply because they are the base assumptions on which we base all other decisions and calculations.

Originally posted by MacLeod
Philosophy tackles subjects man knows will never be answers for, whereas Science does things empirically, forming rules and breaking everything down into the form of pure numbers and equations that are inassailable truths. This means the former will never "get to the point" and the latter will be too empirical...too inhuman. Philosophy will thus be abstract with Science literal, though they are very related. In philosophy too the number of man-made or man-biased assumptions also is higher so its almost like religion this way (dangerously so! lol)

Thank you!
So, science is more of a machines' thing. And by contradiction, Philosophy is a Humans' thing.

One more thing, philosophy is not about logic....what's the logic of questioning something that we know we'll never get answers
'
Philosophy consists in questioning. With or without logic. Of course, logic can be a handfull ally.......but can also be a limiting enemy!

Also, one more thing wrong in you rpost, philosophy does get to the point. Examples are the theories about how we get the knoledge, the existencialisg, the empirism, the are all answers and there are many more. Infact it is only in philosophy than we find answers to man's first and more critical questions! But philosophy, unlike science, never guives up.
For example, science says that it is impossible to pass the speed of light. Philsophy says "Why????"
Science stops at the first statement because it has proved scientifically that it is impossible. But Philosophy is not that arogant. It never proves anything philosophycally. It keep questioning, and never accepts something as undiniable truth.
Science explains how it rains, but philosophy searches the origin of the water.
While science accepts that there has always have been water, philosophy sais that there must have been a tuime when there was no water, and suddently water apeared, ant it searches when, how and who.

It's a tool that we humans have created that excapes the compreention of everything else. Infact it's the philosophycal questions that allow porgress and not the scientific ones.

Where science asks "What formula?" Philosophy asks "Who wrote it?"

Originally posted by BackDoor
philosophy is not about logic....what's the logic of questioning something that we know we'll never get answers

Ah...but that is exactly what philosophy is about! It was created in order to explain our world, our lives, and our existence. We have things like the Greek, Norse and Roman myths because those cultures were curious and needed answers (especially about things they couldn't answer)- like 'where does the lightning come from?', answer: it comes from Thor/Zeus, etc. Philosophy and theology are merely tools humans use to adequately and logically explain things. Put more simply, and relevant to modern times: 'why do bad things happen to good people?' , answer: because God has a plan.
Philosophy is where we rationally find answers where there are none.

And it's both philosophy and science that are human tools to find answers. One is just more abstract than the other. But which one? lol

Tks Truth you did half me work for me :D
Where's the logic in NOT trying to answer unanswerable questions? It's in trying to solve them may they become answerable...On the same vein yes Science and Philosophy are both sides of a same coin-their focus is little different. I'll admit; philosophy is a little more abstract because of their focus. First let's tackle logic and its fallacies. Logic is simply the empirical assessment of a question based on previously proven and (as much as possible) inassailable truths. Unfortunately with the universe as it is there's a fundamental flaw:things are rarely so simple and inassailable. Thus Science ends up being to simple-too confined to small case-by-case basis eg how water heats up how fast light is...its also very cold-there's a danger here that it will not mean anything to us or is impossible to find out eg Black Holes and such faraway stuff.
On philosophy though we throw in a certain human element (you were right on this regard Backdoor) that says "So how can this all apply to us?"...and here's where a little imagination gts thrown in. Philosophy thus becomes more of speculation guided where it can by logic-but remember logic is based on facts and observations we already know which is pitifully little in philosophy. The difference here between religion and philosophy is that we make educated guesses, then add a disclaimer! Instead of "There is a God!" we have "...and thus we arrive at the possibility of a God. Interesting." You'll forgive me if I'll choose the latter LOL In fact when we look at this the most important contribution by logic in philosophy is that anything in philosophy is extremely volatile and not to be taken seriously...which brings to mind 2 of my favourite Philosophical quotes: "Of this world I know only one thing:I know nothing.".,..and "Philosophy is like lemon juice extract-add water and serve with a pinch of salt" LOL
Inversely philosophy contributes to Science in the same way that we humans are superior to machines now (only for now)-it reminds us that inassailable truths for now will never be inassailable later. :D I hope I answered both your questions there?

What I am saying is that even in science, it's the philosophical questions that drive her.
The logic of not searching unanswerable answers is that if they are un-answerable, there is no logic in trying to find answers for them.
This is what a machine thinks. It always finds logic as the best path.

When science comes to a point it can no longuer prove things what does it do? It creates theories! Pure philosophy in action!

It's a resource that we humans have created.
And only we are able to master it.

What I meant with that of "the science explains how it rains, but philosophy questions where the water comes from" was that science is objective. A certain experience has a certain objective. When that objective is met, science does not question it. Because it is illogical to question our result, because it was a result of a method that we concider the right method.
Philosophy isn't like that. First, it questions even the method.

If a machine used a bad method to solve a problem, it will never question itself about it. Because above all logic there must always be certain unquestionable rules that allow logic thoughts, so to question them would be to question the possibility of logic thoughts itself.....witch a machine can't, because that would be questioning the parameters in wich it works.

Because philosophy follows no logic rules, it questions everything. And it has this property because it is somethings created by us, for our use. Because of that, a machine shall never understand it. It can even try to use it, as a try for understanding it, but it will be frustrated because it shall find no logic in it. Like Data trying to laugh. He was faking it. Not actualy feeling it. He is a machine. A state he cannot change. Can't you see? It's the modern Pinoquio! And you are trying to dress AI of Blue Fairy!

We do not work on logic, we do not act on logic. We are Humans.

Yeah I see your point Backdoor. And you just validated mine.
There's no doubt that machines cannot understand philosophy without AI...that's what we mean with sentience and all. AI is supposed to end all this, be the missing link....and the machines' greatest power. It will understand the reasons to question methods of deduction, to step outside logic...but it possesses a greater amount of logic in its thoughts over intuition. This is still a much more powerful combination over humans...to survive in this universe one needs a solid base on what can or cannot be done, then that little bit of intuition to be flexible. We have over-balanced it i feel. Philosophy taken to the extreme is self-destructive...something we hover over. AI i believe will have a better idea of what can and cannot be pondered upon on the other hand. Wat I'm saying here is philosophy is not that important...it makes us humans but tactically nothing more.

...Btw when u talked of Data laughing he was merely imitating emotions...pretty much a waste of time and talents as vast as his.

MacLoud, I will answer yout post with a question:

Do you conceive a day without a laugh?

Heh. I'll answer that wif one of mine.
"If I weren't a human, would I need to to be on par with a human?"

First you have to ask your self one question:
"Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do ya, "punk"?

lol
I just had to say this :D

Now, back to the subject.

You say that Data has many capacities.....but stilll he cannot genuinly love, of laugh, or hate.

This, in my eyes is the most importante feature in a human. Also, don't forget the main flaw of a machine. The one it will aleways have. If you turn it down and program it, it will always comply with what ever you tell it.

My point, is that a machine never has trully free will. We haven't too, but at least our defree of free will is far suerior that their.
A inteligent machine will always be a program commanding a piece of metal.
There is no way around it. Pinoquio will always have the strings comanding his legs and arms. Because he is made of wood, and he is not alive, he has no free will.
In reallity, there is no blue fairy.

Don't get me wrong. We already can see machines laughing, telling jokes, and even putting music according to what they percept that our mood is. But the main point is that they don't understand it. They do not feel it. They do as they are told. As their programs tell them. AI is just another program. A series of routines that tell a machine what to do.
Have you seen Spielbergs' "AI"?

I think it's one of the most beautiful lfilms I have ever seen, and it shows very well some of my ideas.....it contradicts others but...

Do you know in that episode when humans are destroing the machines and one machines asks another to "Switch off my pain receivers"
Right there, at that exact point, we reallise what a machine will be able to be, at it's very best. A bunch of programs running at the same time. A program for math, a program for the eyes, a program for the legs, a program for the ears. They will always resume to a program.

Heh. Here's another example of mine from "First Contact"
Data: "Sir I am feeling a new sensation in my emotion chip. I believe it is anxiety....it is fascinating how it-"
Picard: "-Data I'm sure the experience is very interesting but right now we need to concentrate."
Data: "Yes sir, I will now turn it off." Cocks head "...Done."
Picard: "...Data, there are times when I envy you."

...Like I said, emotions make us human, but does that make us SUPERIOR? In a fight the one with a calm and "emptied" mind-a practical machine-will prevail over an emotional opponent and in Darwin's view that's ALL that matters.
...And you haven't been listening. Does the fact that emotions are programs to a machine make it any different? They're programs to us too-except we can't turn them off. In the end they will always obey a program, but if the program is sufficient and superior, isn't that all one needs? Especially since programs can be continually upgraded...while humans on the other hand can spend 20+ years on earth and still can't help falling helplessly in love here and there (like I embarrassingly do sometimes).
...In the end you've constantly made the mistake that to be superior you have to be human. We have to look at it subjectively and know that there is a possibility of somethings more advanced than us. If you look at speed a cheetah would win for example. We would win when it comes to the intellect but we wouldn't be completely superior; a being as smart as man AND as fast as a cheetah would be...that's something machines can evolve to very quickly.
...How's that for a speedball? :D

Just to elaborate a little...........

Backdoor, you think that if emotions are just programs, they are worth much less than ours. But aren't our emotions, feelings, reactions, etc simply programs from the reality we all live in? If you look at it objectively, you can see that we are all shaped and molded by external forces, for example we learn through experience. We are therefore programmed simply through existing. So what makes our 'natural' emotions any different from a machines? Like Macleod said, a machine (like Data :) ) can turn theirs off when it may impede optimum performance. Not only this, but their programs can be updated (just like ours- think: we are constantly updating our feelings and ideas, learning and experiencing new things everyday. It all adds up to basic upgrading.) with greater speed, accuracy and usefulness. Everything a machine will learn will have at some point a practical purpose. We might waste time doing nothing, and learning nothing- a machine will be upgrading itself all the time. So how can we still be considered superior? (at least in this respect?)

Machines seem to work like us because they were made in our resemblance. (is this the word? I meant to say that we made maCHines to look like us)

Still a machine's emotion does not exist. There are routines that try to input the machine with the commands that we think that best simmulate an emotion. It's very diferent.

We are the original. We are the coin number one :)
The machines are just a cheap copy.