Obsidian on Bioware forums

[Qwinn]

While I love some of Alan Moore's writing and would recommend the Watchmen to anyone, let's not forget that Moore is a "practicing magician" who worships a Roman snake deity of his own invention. Mkay? (And yes, I'm dead serious. So is he.)

Qwinn

 

[Radisshu]

While I love some of Alan Moore's writing and would recommend the Watchmen to anyone, let's not forget that Moore is a "practicing magician" who worships an African snake deity of his own invention. Mkay? (And yes, I'm dead serious. So is he.)

Qwinn

What.

And how the hell can the deity be african if he made it up himself?

 

[Qwinn]

Phew! Just did more research and apparently he acknowledges it to be a hoax. That's a relief.

And it's Roman, not African, my mistake. It's named Glycon.

See his wikipedia page.

He currently lives in Northampton. He is a vegetarian, an anarchist,[18] a practicing magician and occultist, and he worships a Roman snake-deity named Glycon.[19]

That's in the Personal part, but later on under "Magic" it says he acknowledges it to be a "complete hoax".

And hmm, apparently my other sources were wrong, its not entirely of his own invention. Here's what he said about it at one point:

http://www.webcitation.org/5ajJOBmav

Moore on Glycon in the May 2003 issue of Arthur magazine: "The only references there are to him in the literature, which are very disparaging, are in the works of the philosopher Lucien. Lucien explains that the whole Glycon cult was an enormous fraud, and that Glycon was a glove puppet. And I've got no reason to disbelieve that whatsoever. To me, I think that's perfect. If I'm gonna have a god, I prefer it to be a complete hoax and a glove puppet because I'm not likely to start believing that glove puppet created the universe or anything dangerous like that."

Qwinn

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

If I'm gonna have a god, I prefer it to be a complete hoax and a glove puppet because I'm not likely to start believing that glove puppet created the universe or anything dangerous like that."

This is why Moore is more awesome than thou.

 

[Radisshu]

I only worship Zog.

 

[Marsal]

Solving adaptation issues with brain power is much faster than evolution and allows the selfish gene to prevail for that much longer. I don't see a contradiction nor a need for a more complicated explanation than that. If the need to adapt slows greatly, so does evolution. Crocodiles and sharks are a great example of that.

Intelligent life is just more successful at increasing its population, and doing it faster, than unintelligent life. However, it takes a long ass time and tons of prerequisites to get to that point.

I need to read Dawkins before tackling this, but here is a question anyway:
Is it the selfish gene, or a selfish trait? In the case of a trait defined by multiple genes, one gene by itself doesn't effect its own continuation.
In the case of crocodiles and sharks, I don't see them preferable to bacteria in a selfish gene doctrine - they can't shape their environment (the distinct advantage of humans), their survival, as they are predators, heavily depends on the environment and they certainly don't multiply as quickly as bacteria. So, what's their edge with respect to, e.g. bacteria?
How do virii fit into this picture?

You really don't understand how evolution works. Let's switch to your field. I assume you've heard of (and possibly used) genetic algorithms. Path to the solution is not a straight line in most cases. Also, in most cases you can get only so close to the solution. So, who's to say the bacteria are not "the closest solution" and they inherit the Earth? Maybe intelligence is just a failed experiment in a quest to find a perfect life form or maybe there is no universal solution and everything has its time and place. As for crocodiles and sharks, they are just an example of "stagnation" of evolution when it finds the form that works.

No real life example? How about THE real life? Anyway, you missed the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SarA8tqA3WY Maybe this will help, at 8 minute mark (it was Miller, not Dawkins, as I said earlier). The argument can be expanded to the origin of universe and other "improbabilities".

No, and it's obvious to anyone with basic knowledge in discrete and continuous probability.

Ok, I'll bite. Throw some equations and references. Show us how obvious it is.

He claims two things: one is that mathematics is unfair, and the other is that the odds of receiving the same hand in the example are infinitesimal. The second point is incorrect, as there is a small yet finite probability (unlike in my examples, where we deal with the domain of the positive real numbers) that can be calculated. The first point is incorrect, as the mathematics is independent of the timeframe.

How did you conclude that? Did you even listen to what he said? Let me emphasize so you'll maybe understand: IT'S NOT ABOUT POKER! IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE! A METAPHOR! Imagine an infinite deck of cards or something along those lines if you must. The point is that when you calculate probability backwards, it seems that the event that happened is very improbable. Yet it happened, because something must happen (i.e. you have to get some combination of cards).

How many do you need?

About n * 2^infinity, give or take a few magnitude levels, where n is the number of physical constants in the world.

You really do take everything literally. Ok, take n*500^infinity. There, that should be enough. QED? It's the multiverse. We don't know how many universes exist (if they even exist).

Nice strawman, Bible boy. Who could have seen that one coming? Rolling Eyes I suppose that atheists are blowing them selves up all over the world, too? And bombing civilians? And invading countries half way around the globe without any reason to do so? I hate those fucking atheists. We should call to jihad and go on a crusade to wipe them out. Bastards.

It's not called strawman. It's called proof by counterexample. As your statement was "anyone religious is potentially dangerous", it was easy to prove its falsehood by counterexample, while Staljin was a cherry on top, to illustrate my statement - "a religious person is no more probable of being dangerous than an atheist one". 2nd world war, for another example, wasn't caused by religious people.

Notice the word "potentially", as in easier to "fire up" in fighting for his God and eternal bliss (or whatever the ultimate prize) or against heathens. Examples: crusades, inquisition, jihad, the shit Jews did in the old testament... (I'll leave the current day examples out, as we are not objective enough from historical viewpoint).

As for WW2, was Hitler an atheist? Even if he was not, the question is not who's atheist or religious, but who goes to war (or does "evil") in the name religion or atheism. The REASON not the people. Either you're incapable of comprehending that or you're just playing stupid by dancing around the issue, throwing around random and unimportant facts.

So the Bible gives the answers to the questions of spirit that are open to different interpretations? Laughing Well who interprets them? Is it left to the individual to find his interpretation and meaning? If so, why not use some other work of fiction instead of the Bible?

Generalizing is a symptom of a weak mind, unable to discern the particulars. The Bible is a huge work, with some parts that can be taken literally and other parts that are open to interpretation (pretty much as anything written or spoken in any context dependent language, which encompasses all languages spoken by humans). There is a right interpretation, and there is a wrong interpretation, and a person with reading comprehension fundamentals should be able to use context for the right interpretation.

As I seem to be suffering from symptoms of a "weak mind", I humbly beg you, o Wise one, to rightly interpret these couple (short, I couldn't be arsed to find more) quotes to your feebleminded servant:

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."(Exodus 35:2)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

Nice holy book you've got there. I'm just itching to learn the "right context" and the "right interpretation". Let's see that reading comprehension in work. And I don't accept the Zeitgeist argument. God's law is (or should be) universal and is independent of the timeframe. If it's not, admit words in the Bible are not from God. As it is the basis of your faith, that is hard to expect, of course.

The theory of evolution is the best we have, but it still has a lot of inexplicable holes. One possibility is, that God's intervention enabled the formation of life and that God's intervention enabled the mutations necessary to produce a human out of its predecessor (essentially, God cheats at his own game). Another possibility was that God set the physical laws and the initial conditions necessary to produce humans as a result of the natural progression of the universe with the accordance with these laws.

"A lot of inexplicable holes"? Ok, name a dozen (should be piece of cake since there are so many).

I'll give you another possibility: A duck and a turtle created universe and all the matter from a piece of cheese. Duck was eaten by a giant snowman and that made the turtle sad. The turtle cried and her tears formed all animals as we know them. And the turtle made the duck a king of animals to remember its friend. Than the snowman, a jerk he is, realizing that the turtle is just to big for him to eat, created man from a piece of coal that was his nose, just to fuck up everything the turtle created. Ok, there. Another possibility. Which one is more probable, Bible boy? Your fairy tale or the true story of creation I just exclusively revealed to the Codex?

 

[janjetina]

I need to read Dawkins before tackling this, but here is a question anyway:
Is it the selfish gene, or a selfish trait? In the case of a trait defined by multiple genes, one gene by itself doesn't effect its own continuation.
In the case of crocodiles and sharks, I don't see them preferable to bacteria in a selfish gene doctrine - they can't shape their environment (the distinct advantage of humans), their survival, as they are predators, heavily depends on the environment and they certainly don't multiply as quickly as bacteria. So, what's their edge with respect to, e.g. bacteria?
How do virii fit into this picture?

You really don't understand how evolution works. Let's switch to your field. I assume you've heard of (and possibly used) genetic algorithms. Path to the solution is not a straight line in most cases. Also, in most cases you can get only so close to the solution. So, who's to say the bacteria are not "the closest solution" and they inherit the Earth? Maybe intelligence is just a failed experiment in a quest to find a perfect life form or maybe there is no universal solution and everything has its time and place. As for crocodiles and sharks, they are just an example of "stagnation" of evolution when it finds the form that works.

You haven't answered the questions. Let's say that, as you indicated, the evolution is a variant of a stochastic beam search. Is there a general, global fitness function and what is it? Or is the fitness function species dependent? Individual dependent? Trait dependent? Gene dependent?

No real life example? How about THE real life? Anyway, you missed the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SarA8tqA3WY Maybe this will help, at 8 minute mark (it was Miller, not Dawkins, as I said earlier). The argument can be expanded to the origin of universe and other "improbabilities".

No, and it's obvious to anyone with basic knowledge in discrete and continuous probability.

Ok, I'll bite. Throw some equations and references. Show us how obvious it is.

Let's say that each of the four players gets five cards. The probability for the first player to get a particular card, say an ace of spades is 1/52, the probability for the second player to get the second particular card is 1/51 etc., so the total probability of dealing a particular hand of cards is p=1/(52*51*...*37), i.e. a very low, but finite probability. The probability that each player gets the same hand of cards after n hands of getting something else is p*[(1-p)^n]*p. That is a very small, yet finite probability.
For a given physical constant, the probability having of any particular value, given any subset of real numbers is 1/the kardinal number of the subset (which is 2^infinity for each subset of R)=1/2^infinity. Believing in such an improbable event being the result of the chance requires a great leap of faith.

How did you conclude that? Did you even listen to what he said? Let me emphasize so you'll maybe understand: IT'S NOT ABOUT POKER! IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE! A METAPHOR! Imagine an infinite deck of cards or something along those lines if you must. The point is that when you calculate probability backwards, it seems that the event that happened is very improbable. Yet it happened, because something must happen (i.e. you have to get some combination of cards).

Nevertheless, it's a bad example that can't be applied to the situation. A good example would be the following: take a closed box consisting of two isolated compartments. One contains green gas, and another contains blue gas. Remove the compartment. What's the probability that, in any time after reaching the stationary state , one half of the box consists exclusively green gas molecules, and another half contains exclusively blue gas molecules?
The fact that he talks about the anthropic principle doesn't mean much, as it is open to different versions and interpretations as well (so much that its interpretations are present on Wikipedia) and it doesn't change the probabilities.

Ok, take n*500^infinity. There, that should be enough. QED? It's the multiverse. We don't know how many universes exist (if they even exist).

Do you have any reason to believe that there are so many universes? Once again, your statements reduce to the question of belief, rather than the question of a scientific theory.

Notice the word "potentially", as in easier to "fire up" in fighting for his God and eternal bliss (or whatever the ultimate prize) or against heathens. Examples: crusades, inquisition, jihad, the shit Jews did in the old testament... (I'll leave the current day examples out, as we are not objective enough from historical viewpoint).

As for WW2, was Hitler an atheist? Even if he was not, the question is not who's atheist or religious, but who goes to war (or does "evil") in the name religion or atheism. The REASON not the people. Either you're incapable of comprehending that or you're just playing stupid by dancing around the issue, throwing around random and unimportant facts.

A believer (a hypothetic one) can certainly be fired up to fight for his God than an atheist can, seeing that an atheist has no God. A belligerent atheist is led by different motives. The reality is that religious motives are much less prevailent than the motives of territory gain, ethnic hatred and resources in the modern wars. Those sound quite profane. Why do you insist on defending your generalization, when it can be (and has been) proven incorrect by a single counterexample? You should be more coherent in expressing your thoughts and you won't be caught making false statements. Though I may assume what you meant to say with a high probability, I can only comment what you wrote.

Nice holy book you've got there. I'm just itching to learn the "right context" and the "right interpretation". Let's see that reading comprehension in work. And I don't accept the Zeitgeist argument. God's law is (or should be) universal and is independent of the timeframe. If it's not, admit words in the Bible are not from God. As it is the basis of your faith, that is hard to expect, of course.

Your quotes are not entirely correct, but their meaning is essentially the same. You know that the Bible is written by men, and inspired by God? There is a huge difference between the particular laws from the Old Testament, that were essentially laws of the world, aimed at ordering everyday life, and the universal messages present in the books of the New Testament.

"A lot of inexplicable holes"? Ok, name a dozen (should be piece of cake since there are so many).

The holes are in the lack of particular data, hence the theory is incomplete. For example, what are the particular mutations that created a human from our immediate ancestors?

I'll give you another possibility: A duck and a turtle created universe and all the matter from a piece of cheese. Duck was eaten by a giant snowman and that made the turtle sad. The turtle cried and her tears formed all animals as we know them. And the turtle made the duck a king of animals to remember its friend. Than the snowman, a jerk he is, realizing that the turtle is just to big for him to eat, created man from a piece of coal that was his nose, just to fuck up everything the turtle created. Ok, there. Another possibility. Which one is more probable, Bible boy? Your fairy tale or the true story of creation I just exclusively revealed to the Codex?

Sorry, but your example doesn't stand, as our knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology etc. proves that a duck and a turtle are unable of creating the world and prove the rest of your theory false. The only thing that your example proves that you are unable to follow this discussion in a good faith and are just another troll. I'm through derailing the thread.

 

[Helton]

You won't find those mutations because they don't exist we were gentically engineered from local stock but there was no intermediary step.

 

[Relayer71]

You're quoting the protestant editions of The Holy Bible.
The Catholic version, John 3:16-21:

Late to this party and didn't read all the way but had to comment on this above (and sorry if someone already pointed this out)...

So Catholics are right and Protestants are wrong?

Hah!

That is all.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Ah yes, good old days when a Planescape: Torment modder lost his shit over political and religious topics on the 'dex.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

BlackAdderBG