Pets!

[phlit]

Unless you subscribe to dualism, in which case you may as well not argue anything because it's a baseless assumption, "thought" is simply your brain processing information received from your senses.

To elaborate, refer to Descartes' infamous "Cogito ergo sum" quote. You can know that you think (exist) simply by virtue of asking the question "Do I exist?", but you cannot know anything else since, conceivably, an evil deceiver could be sending false information to your senses.

It is in fact entirely possible not to subscribe to any manner of dualism while still holding that thought is not merely a 'brain process' (physical thing); the most popular theory of this type in modern/contemporary philosophy would be the Functionalist approach. There are others too, though obviously things start to get a little complex here (the nature of the mind-body/soul-body union/relationship is, and has always been, a huge discussion point in philosophy).

In regards to good old Descartes, his Cogito was designed to prove the existance of 'I', or the thinking mind we concieve of as the 'self'. The Cogito relies on no 'senses', and yet is the foundation of all knowledge in Descartes philosophy. That is to say, Descartes based his whole epistemological system upon this one initial truth, a truth he found through reason and entirely without external cause (ie something gained through the senses). Beyond this initial 'truth', Descartes is forced to rely on the existance of God to 'rebuild' his world of knowledge after his radical scepticism; and it is this rebuilding and its reliance upon the existance of God (and the arguments thereof) that have lead to his work being largely discredited. (Though his methodology and reasoning was, and remains, critical to modern thought: without Descartes, the world would be *very* different).

In responce to your use of the Cogito, it seems you're suggesting that because Descartes does not accept that the senses are a part of what makes up our thought ('in some way or another, without senses, no thought' - my understanding), he eventually finds himself stuck without being able to believe in anything, incase he may be deceived. Therefore, Descartes & the idea that thoughts or the mind can exist without sensory data at some stage being perceived is nonsense.

I would personally perscribe to the notion that without sensory perceptions the mind cannot exist. But for the sake of argument:
The Descartes comment only argues that if Dualism were true, we could be deceived about what we sense. Is it madness to believe we might be deceived? (modern refer: The Matrix! - But also consider less obvious 'deceit', ie deceit of the senses, etc.)
To take this idea further, consider Berkeley's philosophy, that, in efect, everything only exists as a thought or concept within the mind of God, and God causes what we see/understand as causation to occur. Or look to Hume, and consider how two pool balls transfer energy to each other when one rolls in to the other. What do we know of how the 'force' is transmitted in physics? Surprisingly little, we only know that it *is*; our understanding of *why* and *how* is limited to our subjectivity (within space/time and so on).

I should really be doing something else right now....

PS. Mage pets suck :censored:

 

[phlit]

Okay, so I just remembered what my point was in the last post:

In ref to:

It's akin to asking what goes on in the world beyond what we can sense: an interesting thought experiment for five minutes, but ultimately completely meaningless, because you have no way of ever knowing.

I would argue that there's more interest than five miutes worth, and that ultimately 'asking what goes on in the world beyond what we can sense' is crucial to understanding, though perhaps not understanding what you think you're understanding. Certainly, I'd argue that without people thinking (for more than 5 minutes ) about these things, SoD wouldn't exist! Along with a lot of other things we've come up with due to our self-deception that we really have a clue about what's going on....

Must smoke less weed when posting.......

 

[Raherin]

PS. Mage pets suck

How can they suck when they are the best pet in the game?

 

[phlit]

PS. Mage pets suck

How can they suck when they are the best pet in the game?

How can you bring this back on topic? And I guess I should get used to adding /sarcasm where needed =/

 

[zodium]

It is in fact entirely possible not to subscribe to any manner of dualism while still holding that thought is not merely a 'brain process' (physical thing); the most popular theory of this type in modern/contemporary philosophy would be the Functionalist approach. There are others too, though obviously things start to get a little complex here (the nature of the mind-body/soul-body union/relationship is, and has always been, a huge discussion point in philosophy).

The role of religion has also been a huge discussion point in philosophy, but that, too, comes down to "My baseless assumption is better than your baseless assumption". All arguments must be able to reduced down to their smallest possible component - if there, way at the back, lies a baseless assumption, there is no reason to argue it. That is not to say that it's inherently false, since baseless guesses can obviously be true, but there's no idea in arguing it since you can't argue unfounded beliefs anyway.

I'll have to admit to unfamiliarity with functionalism, but a quick read-through of it does not seem to support your claim that it somehow makes thought anything but a physical thing. As a matter of fact, it appears to be primarily used as an argument for Strong AI, which would pretty much support my claim that thought is just the interpretation of senses (input).

In regards to good old Descartes, his Cogito was designed to prove the existance of 'I', or the thinking mind we concieve of as the 'self'. The Cogito relies on no 'senses', and yet is the foundation of all knowledge in Descartes philosophy. That is to say, Descartes based his whole epistemological system upon this one initial truth, a truth he found through reason and entirely without external cause (ie something gained through the senses). Beyond this initial 'truth', Descartes is forced to rely on the existance of God to 'rebuild' his world of knowledge after his radical scepticism; and it is this rebuilding and its reliance upon the existance of God (and the arguments thereof) that have lead to his work being largely discredited. (Though his methodology and reasoning was, and remains, critical to modern thought: without Descartes, the world would be *very* different).

I don't remember ever citing any part of Descartes' work, except "Cogito ergo sum" being the only definite truth to any individual, but maybe the general forum population appreciates your lecture.

In responce to your use of the Cogito, it seems you're suggesting that because Descartes does not accept that the senses are a part of what makes up our thought ('in some way or another, without senses, no thought' - my understanding), he eventually finds himself stuck without being able to believe in anything, incase he may be deceived. Therefore, Descartes & the idea that thoughts or the mind can exist without sensory data at some stage being perceived is nonsense.

No, I'm saying that I'm finding myself stuck without being able to believe in anything, only work with what I have - predictions based on past experiences. I do not base my world on René Descartes, I merely acknowledge that the man made an excellent point with his Cogito argument.

I would personally perscribe to the notion that without sensory perceptions the mind cannot exist. But for the sake of argument:
The Descartes comment only argues that if Dualism were true, we could be deceived about what we sense. Is it madness to believe we might be deceived? (modern refer: The Matrix! - But also consider less obvious 'deceit', ie deceit of the senses, etc.)

According to common sense, it is madness to believe we might be deceived on the scale of the Matrix, and I'm usually the first to pounce on a conspiracy theorist crackpot when one is spotted. That, however, does not make it impossible that we are being deceived, or that noone but me (or yourself) in fact exist and I am being deceived. This has nothing to do with dualism though.

To take this idea further, consider Berkeley's philosophy, that, in efect, everything only exists as a thought or concept within the mind of God, and God causes what we see/understand as causation to occur. Or look to Hume, and consider how two pool balls transfer energy to each other when one rolls in to the other. What do we know of how the 'force' is transmitted in physics? Surprisingly little, we only know that it *is*; our understanding of *why* and *how* is limited to our subjectivity (within space/time and so on).

Arguments from ignorance (we, or at least I, do not know how force is transmitted, therefore it does not exist!) are a logical fallacy. Neither you, me, Hume or Berkeley is an expert physicist by modern standards and thus do not enjoy expert authority on the matter of whether or not causality exists. Hume does not illustrate that causation does not exist, merely that we don't know how it exists (and have no informed guesses yet), much like we don't know anything else for sure, except that the individual self exists. How does this support your argument when it is already quite clearly explained in mine? :?

I should really be doing something else right now....

Yeah, me too.

 

[Danku]

I like wheat bread~!

 

[JayelleNephilim]

I like wheat bread~!

/agree


**/em thinks Zodium and Phlit sound like my Theology professors ...

 

[phlit]

To say...

ll arguments must be able to reduced down to their smallest possible component - if there, way at the back, lies a baseless assumption, there is no reason to argue it.

and

I don't remember ever citing any part of Descartes' work, except "Cogito ergo sum" being the only definite truth to any individual"

Is to contradict oneself. If one has only one definite truth (that one exists), everything else *must* be a 'baseless assumption': therefore, by entering into this 'argument', you are a contradiction.

To bring this into context, consider: nothing that exists, and therefore is perceptable through the senses, can contradict itself. (If something is blue all over, it cannot be black all over; if something exists, it cannot not exist (excuse the double negative); therefore, the mind, or thought, behind this 'error', seems to be more than merely a physical thing (for then it could not contradict itself), though it could be considered an attribute to a physical thing, or some kind of extension of a physical thing, or/and so on...

I don't remember ever citing any part of Descartes' work, except "Cogito ergo sum" being the only definite truth to any individual, but maybe the general forum population appreciates your lecture.

No, I'm saying that I'm finding myself stuck without being able to believe in anything, only work with what I have - predictions based on past experiences. I do not base my world on René Descartes, I merely acknowledge that the man made an excellent point with his Cogito argument.

I have misunderstood your understanding of the Cogito; however, my point was/is this: you argue that

what goes on in the world beyond what we can sense: an interesting thought experiment for five minutes, but ultimately completely meaningless, because you have no way of ever knowing.

and then provide as elaboration Descartes' Cogito. However, the Cogito is derived at by Descartes at the point that he has denied *all* the knowledge he has gained through the senses as being potentially false, and therefore, by his methodology of doubt, he accepts now as false.

I hope this is a little clearer now... Cogito theory derived from denying all the senses *ever*, yet you seem to use it to argue that we cannot do anything but rely on our senses.

No, I'm saying that I'm finding myself stuck without being able to believe in anything, only work with what I have - predictions based on past experiences. I do not base my world on René Descartes, I merely acknowledge that the man made an excellent point with his Cogito argument.

To clarify, I am trying to expound that the point made in the Cogito is that when we cannot believe even our senses, for fear of being deceived, we are left with nothing we can believe in totally except our existance as a self-aware 'I', or 'mind'. It does not support the argument that, therefore, there is nothing to believe in except when you are able to 'work with what I have'.

Arguments from ignorance ... are a logical fallacy ... Hume does not illustrate that causation does not exist, merely that we don't know how it exists (and have no informed guesses yet), much like we don't know anything else for sure, except that the individual self exists. How does this support your argument when it is already quite clearly explained in mine?

I was not trying to argue from a position of ignorance, and I don't believe I was. Hume believes not that we don't know yet, but that we cannot ever know. It is beyond the capability (for whatever reason) for us to know. The other examples are 'theories' or 'hypothesis'; they are not examples of arguments from ignorance. To support your argument, I'd have said that the nature of the arguments I cited, whilst comprising major philosophical ideas in western philosophy, are, merely by their existance, disproof of themselves; that is to say, barring the empiricism of Hume & co., the rational nature of philosophical text is in harmony or accord with the rationality/nature of 'the physical world' - the argument is, in effect, a contradiction... A contradiction which brings us nicely back to the start of the post, and our little philsophical discussion here.

 

[dbum]

repeat after me...

HEADPANTS!!!

 

[kineldar]

I've been trying to figure out if magician pets are weaker than they were on live or if I just remember it that way. Based on my observations up to level 20 as well as my dealings with high-level mages, it appears that yes, DPS is significantly less for mage pets (and possibly pets in general) as compared to live. Specifically, the pet swings just as often for just as much, but misses a great deal more.

I hunted through the forums for some explanation, but could find none. Any word on this design decision? Was there some form of compensation given to pet classes? I feel like a Wizard where my pet is no more than a familiar.

The pets here on sod may seem weaker than pets on live, and really they arent, they are sufficiently strong to deal with the mobs here. Did you notice the mobs are also generally weaker than live? Well for the most part they are. I'm sure someone has said this but im going to reiterate it, DO NOT COMPARE LIVE TO SOD. In any context. About the only thing that sod and live have in common are Models and textures. pretty much everything else is so completely different, that it does no good, nor makes any sense to compare them.


That is all.