2006-02-15 [hive]: i belive that we were less pig headed back then and were able to comunicate through esp, hey mayans, say the egyptians, we have this great archilogical plan, ill beam it to you via esp, lol

2006-02-15 [Estantia]: either that or they had the same situations which led to the best answer, pyramids.

2006-02-15 [thoughtfox]: didn't they find a complex series of ancient runways for aircraft in South America? That would then be UFOlogy. Let's not forget that the Pyramids in Egypt are quite bizarre - no one's sure how they managed to put all the stones in place - but moreover, positioned each pyramid so perfectly with regards to the sun and stars.

2006-02-15 [Estantia]: or was that the purpose for which the pyramids were built? butceause the mayan temples I'm almost certain had similar placing properties to the stars as the egyptians, again pointing to a common problem/reason.

2006-02-15 [DanClark]: And if these thoughts ring true, then were the stones at Stonehenge man's attempt to emulate the visitors' structures....

2006-02-15 [Estantia]: there's more than one way to solve a problem, and the pyramids were built as primarily a grave than a temple so that also explains a difference in structure.

2006-02-27 [hive]: Also, I forget his name, but a guy in the early 1900's built this structure somewhere in Florida that defies all logic. Also, this guy built it all by himself and always at night. He was from Italy I’m pretty sure. With this knowledge it would have been easy to construct pyramids, and this math could have been taught and passed on.

2006-02-28 [thoughtfox]: could you perhaps direct us to an image of this logic-defying structure?

2006-02-28 [Estantia]: logic-defying? how can it be logic-defying entirely if it was built and imagined by someone?

2006-03-01 [DanClark]: Not logic defying per se, but he built a house and maze from blocks of stone so heavy that modern equipement would have problems doing it. It seems he used magnetics and pulley systems to move stones that weighed tons, all by hand....and alone.

2006-03-01 [thoughtfox]: it is believed that the Egyptians used ramps, pulleys, logs for wheels and other physical principles to build the pyramids

2006-03-01 [Estantia]: and masses and masses of slaves.

2006-03-02 [hive]: Thank you for that clearing up DanClark, I do tend to get carried away trying to put my pictures into words. 

2006-03-02 [Estantia]: i see, that IS interesting. did he leave the equip there in the day?

2006-03-02 [DanClark]: That's what baffled most people, because the equipment he used should not have been sufficient to do what he did.

2006-03-02 [Estantia]: 0unless he brought more at night.0

2006-05-12 [hive]: yes, and they did take that into account, but even with other equipment he was always alone, and did not use any electrical equip or extra man power

2006-05-15 [DanClark]: Exactly, old principles and hand tools.

2006-05-15 [Estantia]: and intelligent too.

2006-06-26 [hive]: i want to be in that knowledge of true physics, to "know" that everything is possable and to be able to make the impossable possable, how do we become this...person who knows?

2006-06-26 [Estantia]: we learn, to look, we listen and we ask.

2006-06-26 [DanClark]: Some civilizations believe that the whole of their ancestry is accessible through meditation. Perhaps tapping into your past can help you learn what has been forgotten, or put aside.

2006-06-26 [hive]: i always think of Clan of the Cave Bear, when he tastes the dirt and remembers that none of his tribe had ever been there before them. this is such a wonderful gift, and i wonder has it becoming more difficult for humans to use this "memory bank", or do we just need to focus more, like you guys said in meditation.

2006-06-26 [Estantia]: or maybe just watching what everyone else does can show you more than you expected.

2006-06-27 [DanClark]: That's how most apprenticeships work, talking and reading about things can give you an understanding, but watching and doing gives you the ability. Very few people can read something an be able to do it th first time, or even realize that they are doing something wrong.

2006-06-27 [Estantia]: exactly, one reason why I like to watch so much

2006-06-29 [nokaredes]: Me too :) Also, I like to listen. Sometimes people forget I'm around, and they say more interesting stuff than they would have otherwise...

2006-06-29 [DanClark]: OK, here's a little idea: How do you see the manipulation of reality through metaphysics? Meaning, is it mental, imagination, manipulation through the request of assistance, how does metaphysics work to/for you?

2006-06-30 [Estantia]: define metaphysics... then i can say how it changes it...

2006-07-02 [thoughtfox]: I don't see a great difference between mental and imagination. It is by letting our thoughts produce whatever comes that we imagine, and is thus a mental process. Then the request of assistance is merely the concentration of thoughts on a particular wish. Thus I see it as a mental-universal connection. The energy of our thoughts affects the reality, although with some to a greater extent than others.

2006-07-04 [DanClark]: Do you believe that our thoughts are directly in control of the changes, or are they merely requests to another reality. Is our reality the only reality, and are the four dimensions that we are aware of the only four?

2006-07-04 [DanClark]: Lets look at this for a moment: Time is the only true constant (or we'll assume it is) We have no control over it, so therefore it would be the most logical choice as a common link between multiple planes. If time is the constant, and all other things are affected by it , then through it should lie the key to manipulation of this and other realities.

2006-07-04 [thoughtfox]: Firstly, there is only one normality. Everything has a specific and unalterable form, and will only act according to this form. Thus there is no real choice - if you like chocolate more than bubblegum, you will choose chocolate. That is the reality.

2006-07-04 [thoughtfox]: Thus thoughts are, in your terms, directly in control - but this is rather blunt. Our thoughts influence the energies of the universe, they do not change it drastically. We are but the butterfly that flaps its wings - it may, or may not, cause a whirlwind, depending on the will of the universe.

2006-07-04 [thoughtfox]: As for dimensions, I've heard there's twelve :P. And as for time, it is only the measure of progression of effects. It doesn't affect things. It allows things to take effects. Thus time doesn't really link the planes (could you define this in your terms please?) it links simultaneous events. Thus everything happens, but it only happens at a given time, and that's where time comes in.

2006-07-04 [thoughtfox]: re-reading all of that, I think I ought to point out that despite my matter-of-factness, these are obviously only my opinions. We're not working with an exact science here, so everything we say must be to some extent or another subjective.

2006-07-04 [Estantia]: re we? is what you see real? what you know true?

2006-07-04 [thoughtfox]: Yes, we. We're all in this metaphysics classroom, so I'm assuming we're all examining this philosophy, this science. What I see may be real, but not necessarily, and I claim to know nothing, only address what I think. It may easily be false, but it is what seems reasonable to me.

2006-07-05 [DanClark]: I believe that time is greatly under rated. Let's look at cloning, Dolly the sheep who aged rapidly until reaching the age of the original cell. That tells me that time is not just a system of measurement, but a defined state. With that defined state, perhaps the butterfly beating it's wings merely affects this plane because it has met the criteria of time and place.

2006-07-05 [DanClark]: That begs to look at some long standing common sayings: right time right place; and wrong time, wrong place. Fortune it seems, may simply be the ability to see time and it's relation to location. We can all accept the notion of Ley lines, and planetary alignments, places of power and the ever elusive 'witching hour' . Why was it so important to understand time and it's effect on life? Stonehenge is basically an enormous clock, scarily precise as compared to the magnitude and apparent crudeness of it's creation.

2006-07-05 [Estantia]: is it scary that it's so precise? The fact they could do it and knew so much simply implies they may not have been distracted, also means they may have had a set of principles to follow, they may not neccessarily understand WHY it happens, just what to do so that it does.

2006-07-05 [thoughtfox]: Time wasn't warped with Dolly, though, and that's what I'm getting at. Dolly wasn't speeding up her clock - time moves at one rate (and I suspect, although I don't know, the cell itself knew how old it should be, and adjusted accordingly). The cell merely grew faster, it covered more distance per unit time. Clearly, however, time is a dimension which must be considered, and that's where "wrong time" and "right time" comes in - just as a length can be "too long" or "too short". It is a measurement. Get all your dimension values right, and yes, you have something which fits a situation perfectly, as a well-measured steel beam will fit a sky-scraper.

2006-07-05 [thoughtfox]: So yes, there is a right/wrong time. I pull off at an intersection when the light is green - that tells me that the time is right for me to move. It doesn't mean time is warped, it's merely measured. Thus it's not just a question of understanding time. It's a question of what happens at X time?

2006-07-05 [Estantia]: what would be wonderful is seeing everything come together perfectly in time...

2006-07-06 [DanClark]: But if time is measured and witht the example of Dolly's cell 'knowing' it had to be at a certain point... wouldn't that support that time is not merely a unit of measurement, but more to the point something that can be measured...like a steel beam?

2006-07-06 [DanClark]: I must warn everyone that what I write is not always what I believe... I tend to play devil's advocate to provoke interesting conversation, and hopefully we all will get something out of the conversations.

2006-07-06 [Estantia]: yes, but if it is a measurement do the normal rules apply?

2006-07-06 [thoughtfox]: What do you mean by 'normal rules', Estantia? And well, DanClark, I don't see the difference between a unit of measurement and something that can be measured. We can measure a minute, we call it sixty seconds. That's our steel beam. If we could warp it, I'd be terrified, but based on my belief of one true nature, thus one reality, I see it as unlikely, although nothing is impossible. I definitely hope we don't ever get to a phase where we can.

2006-07-06 [thoughtfox]: As for Dolly, think of your own cells. You are, according to your profile, 34. So your cells will behave as they do at age thirty-four. Introduce the cells of an embryo, and they will act as the age of an embryo, which is why they are so essential for medical science right now. Dolly's cells were Dolly's age - not the age of a baby sheep - so they behaved accordingly.

2006-07-06 [Estantia]: *thinks* wait, yes the normal rules of measurement do apply... in theory you could bend time though, and make it loop, would it still be sixty second if you did the same sixty twice?

2006-07-07 [DanClark]: That begs the question that is time measured on the celluar level, or is it an outside force?

2006-07-07 [Estantia]: I think there may be two 'versions' of time. In normal circumstances they are one and the same however. THere's the outside force, the one that keeps ticking on and on before and after... Then there's your own personal timeline, IF we manage to time travel this second can warp and the other will just go on completely unconcerned as you hop along it.

2006-07-07 [thoughtfox]: Estantia, time loops in that sci-fi idea for going back in time? Theoretically, I suppose so - if you live those sixty seconds, and go back a minute, you have those sixty again - once again, a dreadful thought - enough disasters can happen in one minute, let's not double that. DanClark, I still cannot see time as a force. Time has no mass with which to exert a force. It holds no energy. It allows forces to take place, since forces are dependant on time. The ruler doesn't cut the piece of paper, it measures out the length to be cut.

2006-07-07 [DanClark]: Energy has no mass, but it is still energy. We measure it, because we see it, or it's effects. Why then can time not be?

2006-07-07 [Estantia]: why not describe time as a presence rather than a force then?

2006-07-07 [thoughtfox]: I like that, Estantia. A presence works. Danclark, energy is also a measurement - it's a measurement of how much work an object can do. Similarly, time is a measurement - it tells us when an object is at work. We don't manipulate energy (usually), and similarly, we don't manipulate time. Energy is transferred between objects, because that is a physical law, just as time progresses forward. We do not literally increase the amount of energy of a car by adding fuel. We merely add something which will give off energy to the car, namely fuel. We control the fuel, not the energy. Similarly, we measure time - we know how much time is needed for us to do certain tasks, and plan our days accordingly.

2006-07-07 [thoughtfox]: Thus we cannot (at least, at the moment) change the amount of time it takes us to do a task - we can only change that by working harder, moving faster etc. Apart from that, time isn't, and should never come, under our control.

2006-07-08 [Estantia]: however if you think of time as a river it wouldn't be affecting it too much if you could climb out and walk back along the bank before jumping in again? However that raises problems and answers. If it were possible to do that then we could find if a personal timeline existed (hence two people at once) or whether our timeline is one and the same, in which case it would be like rewinding a tape and recording over it...

2006-07-08 [Estantia]: oh and famous quote from churchill, (i think) "Many people say time is a monster that stalks us all our lives. I disagree. I think it is a companion along the way who reminds us to treasure each moment because it will never come again." that's where I got the idea of a presence from...

2006-07-08 [nokaredes]: ...I think that every decision any person has to make creates a dimension for every choice there is...

2006-07-08 [thoughtfox]: That's exactly why I hope we never manage to climb out, [Estantia]. We've already seen the power of Einstein's theory in the nuclear bomb (some Uranium used in the atomic pile was inexplicably lost - it was determined it must have transformed into energy). If we could stop time, change the past, affect the future, revive evil, exploit it for personal gain - it's terrifying.

2006-07-08 [thoughtfox]: [nokaredes], I have to disagree strongly. You make your choices based on your character. If you like chocolate more than bubblegum, removing all other factors, you'd choose chocolate. There is no other universe where you will choose bubblegum. Or, if there was, your character would have to have been different. Thus it's not you making the choice in that alternate universe - it's a different person, who likes bubblegum. And of course, if we're discussing a different character, there is no way your decision could have spawned him, let alone affect him.

2006-07-08 [thoughtfox]: Here's a question that's haunting me, though, and the more I think about it the more it could hold a key to my future, and to anyone's happiness. Given the concept of reincarnation: would my passions depend on my previous life? I.e. if I am passionately in love with all things related to India, does that mean that in a previous life I was an Indian? Or, does it mean that in my previous life I had very little experience with India, if any at all, and consequentally I am lured to what I haven't experienced? And if it's the former, would indulgence in my passion be degenerative - moving backwards?

2006-07-08 [Estantia]: I think it's more likely the second, and it matches the wiccan beliefs oddly enough. they say we choose the lessons we want to elarn in the next life.

2006-07-10 [DanClark]: I like the theory that we were all sitting around God and he was telling a story. We kept stopping him and asking "what love?" "what's pain?".. until He turned around and said , " Let me show you." And we keep coming back over and over until we learn everything.... and then He'll continue his story.

2006-07-10 [Estantia]: I think we're already living that story, only that instead of god there is a storyteller presence (a bit like fate). However that entity of the storyteller is made up of all the people that it uses in its story, so we're all part of it and working with others to create it.

2006-08-04 [hive]: I like to think of life as a school, some of us are in college, while some are still in first grade. the lessons of life take many lifetimes to learn, each time you come back, depends on the lessons already learned, if you commited suiside because you couldn't pass a certain test, then you will have to come back in your next life and do it over. There is no skipping school, lol

2006-08-04 [Estantia]: yes, some believe we set the lessons we want to learn

2006-08-07 [DanClark]: So [hive], what and why are we learning? I believe very closely to what you do it seems...

2006-08-07 [Estantia]: we are learning what we can from our discussions...

2006-08-08 [hive]: i try to learn from my behavior (although sometimes i am ashamed). children, to me, are great teachers of tolerance, and kindness. in here i try to learn about others oppions, and this helps me understand myself, we have good teachers in here. as for why, i think its because we are trying to improve ourselves, and become more enlightened

2006-08-09 [thoughtfox]: I think everything, and everyone, around us, including ourselves, are all teachers. It's how you deal with the situation that makes you learn. We're all merchants on similar roads, with the same destination. We all trade our bits of maps to find our way there.

2006-08-09 [Estantia]: I see the way we affect each other as ripples in a set of interlocking pools, one set spreads to another, reflects back and forward, lessening, strengthening, shifting. Everyone's stories intertwine.

2006-08-09 [thoughtfox]: Yes. And it's fascinating to watch those dynamics.

2006-08-09 [Estantia]: it's what I love doing... and it's called writing too :D

2006-08-09 [thoughtfox]: I also adore it. Writing I find takes it a step further: when you write a story, especially fantasy, suddenly you're god, you create - but your characters get a life of their own.

2006-08-09 [hive]: yes, we may all be gods in training, waiting to be enlightened onto our own universe. i love The Neverending Story, how his thoughts and feelings were transformed into reality, makes me so happy to be alive, to imagine, and know that somewhere my worlds are alive. by the way, you both are so wonderful, its great to know that the younger generation is so enlightened, gives us hope for the future. thank you

2006-08-09 [Estantia]: I wouldn't say the yunger generation though, it's mostly the people who engage in fantasy that are the people who are worth talking to, most of the younger generation may be thoughtless, but they will all have found that moment of perfect harmony when everything just works without you having to try, and THAT is the crucial bit, because that makes you grow and live, just to get it again and work in that space. It just happens the people here get it in the same sort of way, even builders and hairdressers get it, everyone.

2006-08-30 [DanClark]: 'If you do something you like, you'll never 'work' a day in your life.'

2006-08-30 [Estantia]: that's the one :)

2006-08-31 [DanClark]: The hard part is finding what you like. This may seem like an easy question to answer, but it is harder than you think... to put into action at least.

2006-08-31 [Estantia]: oh yes, that I agree with, and there are always bad sides to every job...

2006-10-05 [DanClark]: Wow... been more than a month and I apologize.
New question for discussion:
Is the statement 'Good things happen to good people' true, and why/ why not? And how could it be linked/altered metaphysically?

2006-10-05 [Estantia]: yes it is true, but only in the sense that everything happends to everyone...

2006-10-05 [Urecht]: I don't think it't true. Ive been a good person my entire life, but all that seems to follow me is misfortune.

2006-10-05 [Estantia]: I woul;dn't say all, all is a dangerous word to use. My guess is that you just don't see the good things, for one look at your situation, you have friends around the world through elftown, you can understand these big ideas and you can see the beautiful art and stories around this case.

it's not the case that there aren't good things... it's seeing them that's the trick *smiles*

2006-10-06 [Urecht]: Sure minor good things have happened to me. Like finding a dollar on the street or something along those lines but thats about it. I used think I had good things in my life but those where taken away from me. It seems that no matter how nice i am, even when people are pushing me around or trying to beat me up, that bad stuff continues to happen.

2006-10-06 [Estantia]: you still do have good things, access to the net, friends to talk to... all of those are good, but can be taken for granted.

2006-10-06 [DanClark]: So, We have a yes and a no... but where is the link to metaphysics?

2006-10-06 [Estantia]: in my case of everything happens to everyone it's various aspects, some call it lessons god wishes us to learn, some call it trying to gather experiences, some say it is simply random. In any case events are indiscriminate, they care not whether the person is good or bad.

2006-10-16 [DanClark]: Could the good and bad that happens be linked to how we act and what we say? If you beleive you will succedd, is it more likely to happen?

2006-10-16 [Estantia]: probably, because you work harder...

2006-10-17 [DanClark]: I agree, but look at the idea behind a spell: words, actions, and belief....but the same can be said for overcoming any obstacle iin everyday life. With this in mind, if you believe you can achieve something, you vocalise it (either internally or externally) and add the appropriate action...will it happen?
I look at how things work in my life: People tell me that I'm lucky...whenever I truely need something, it happens. Now I tell them it's because I have faith that everything happens for a reason, and that you will get back what you put out into the world. Now the question is, is my 'luck' at metaphysical response to the actions and energies I release into the world around me?

2006-10-17 [Estantia]: In my experience it's a fine tuned balance between thinking youre not going to win enough to have the lucky and being overconfident so it's taken away, so it's a dance, a delicate one.

2006-10-18 [DanClark]: What if it isn't a matter of hoping you win, or being overconfident...but simply knowing that it will happen.

2006-10-18 [Estantia]: that is one of the most powerful yes, but there's always that sight bit of doubt

2006-11-03 [hive]: i believe by doing good, you are sending out good vibs, that is manifesting positive energy, it gos out and comes back to you as positive energy. so when we get frustrated with life, like when you think things arn't going good, you should try to cast some positive energy out into the universe, and see in what form it will come back to you.

2006-11-03 [Estantia]: I look at what's already coming back :)

2006-11-05 [DanClark]: If you want to fix the problems of the world, start with yourself. Perhaps you may lead by example...

2006-11-13 [hive]: beautifully put teacher, i always remember that actions speak louder then words, and even more so if you want to change the world. people are stuborn, but not if they belive that what they are doing is the (in) thing. i hope being good to one another and the enviroment are two things i try to show examples of to people.

2006-11-13 [Estantia]: I do what I can...

2006-11-14 [DanClark]: If everyone did what they could, this world would be a vastly different place. But don't ever let the overwelming odds get you down....just push yourself to be better and better.

2006-12-22 [DanClark]: A Happy Holidays to all!

2006-12-22 [Estantia]: same to you!

2007-01-01 [thoughtfox]: Happy New Year to everyone! what is everyone's opinion of the concept of a new year and whatever metaphysics lie behind it? For me, only the last four digits of the date change, and I have a lot to drink over the night. The real beginnings somehow have to be attached to something more concrete... so far the change of the year happens in that blurry grey-zone of summer holidays and is lost.

2007-01-01 [Estantia]: It's just another day, but somehow we've made it important. How? No idea, but it now has a significance because people think it does...

2007-02-19 [DanClark]: I apologize for my absence. Work has been monopolozing much of my time, that and home repairs...
If there is anything specific you would care to discuss, I am more than happy to lead or participate in a discussion. At this point however, I fear that I will be somewhat truant in starting any new lessons.

2007-02-19 [Estantia]: then start a general discussion... would people agree that stmbols in our minds enforce who we are?

2007-02-20 [DanClark]: Symbols to enact a desired result, or symbols to act as a focus towards a specific goal?

2007-02-20 [Estantia]: no symbols as in objects or things that are of particular importance to you and gain significance other than every day?

2007-02-20 [DanClark]: Like a cross or pendant? A sigil, or sign? Physical (ie, worn or drawn) or mental (ie: imagine a staircase.....)

2007-02-20 [Estantia]: mental, for example the way I have grown up means that I see a lot of things in terms of stories and magic. however symbolism of rolling hills and wind also crops up a lot, the hills are from where i live, as is the wind.

2007-03-13 [thoughtfox]: I see this discussion has fallen stagnant, so let me push it in a new direction. I'm now studying Philosophy, and it's actually fun, except for a number of disagreements between my lecturer and me, and the fact that my tutor and the tutorial class aren't very bright (in fact, I took over the class last time because the tutor was late... it was quite an experience)

2007-03-13 [thoughtfox]: Anyways, my major problem right now is this: the concept of contingent and necessary beings. According to the textbook definition, a contingent being exists in some, but not all possible worlds. A necessary being exists in all.

2007-03-13 [thoughtfox]: I disagree with the idea of possible worlds. If one attempts to conceive one of these possible worlds by changing one aspect (say, instead of wearing blue today, I wore yellow), one needs to change the factors behind that: it's not enough to say I could have worn yellow - I didn't for a particular reason, blue brings out my eyes, it's a calm colour, and anyways I don't have that many yellow clothes. One would need to change my personality and my wardrobe for this other world, which would lead to other factors having to be changed, and this continues in infinite regression.

2007-03-13 [thoughtfox]: Therefore, the existing world is necessary, or other worlds would have to be fundamentally different - so much so that one could say nothing is necessary.

2007-03-14 [Estantia]: but if nothing is necessary, then is it right to say that nothing is unimportant? after all, if nothing's important everything's at the same level.

2007-03-14 [thoughtfox]: There's a difference. Necessary in this case doesn't mean it's needed and hence important. Necessary means it has to exist - it can't not exist under any possibility. What i'm saying is everything is necessary, for if we are to remove it, we are to remove whole chains of factors with it, which fundamentally changes the universe

2007-03-14 [Estantia]: who says there can't be others where that does happen though?

2007-03-14 [thoughtfox]: That depends on how many causes there were to the universe. If we were to assume that Sober is right in suggesting that there are multiple causes for the universe, then there would be as many universes as there are causes. Otherwise, if we accept thinkers like St Aquinas or apply Ockham's razor and pick the idea that sounds simplest, then there is one ultimate cause, in which case every factor must stem back to this one factor which is necessary. As soon as that is necessary, everything that follows is also necessary, or the causes would not lead to the effects that they were supposed to. Even if we hold that there are multiple causes, if they are necessary, then all their causes are necessary.

2007-03-14 [Estantia]: however one cause can lead to two different answers, like the invention of the television, same idea, different ways. could that idea be applied to these causes and factors? in which case you can get some that aren't strictly necessary.

2007-03-15 [DanClark]: You also need to look at the fact that if each unviverse can spawn a multitude of universes, then the factor of fate becomes unimportant. Meaning that the fate of the one is relevant only until a decision is made thus creating a multitude of the same ones leading in different directions, encouraging a multitude of possible outcomes most of which would lead away from the outcome predetermined.

2007-03-15 [Estantia]: unless of course they merge back and forth? for example two universes remerge at a certain point and then split later to perhaps merge with others.

2007-03-16 [DanClark]: Still, the multipicity of the separation would negate the resolution of fate, the only other option is that all variants reconverge at specific events throughout life, with all of them ending at the same point. Then Fate would be preserved.

2007-03-16 [Estantia]: well it would make sense to be always heading in the same direction, because a person's nature will always lead them in the same general direction, meaning that in a way their path is fated, but by themselves and who they are.

2007-03-18 [DanClark]: But the multiverse allows that every possible decision will be made and thus spawn an infinite series of possible outcomes. Effectively an expolsion of possibilities exponentially growing with multiple repetitions for the eventuality of interaction.

2007-03-18 [Estantia]: however some of those outcomes are not possible because of the people within them, for example someone with a pacifist nature would not go psycho for no reason and kill all their dearest friends.

Also there's another point, the fact that you prefer yellow over red (your original example) may change the person in a small sense, but liking red or yellow more wouldn't make an impact on the big decisions.

2007-03-19 [DanClark]: I view the progression of the human race as such:

In the beginning, there was chaos anything could and would be done for survival, then a basis of morality began, and people were forced and attuned themselves to an acceptable code of conduct. As a direct result technology began to increase and now it is beginning to surpass us. The rapidity of knowledge, and the minute amounts of effort required to obtain it is propelling us forward like buckshot from the barrel of a shotgun. Unfortunately as time progresses, I see the human race spreading out and away from the morality and code of conduct that made us civilized.

2007-03-19 [Estantia]: sounds about right... and aren't they already?

2007-03-19 [DanClark]: The basis of most behaviors states that the more intelligent the civilization, the more benevolent the society is supposed to be.

2007-03-19 [Estantia]: *looks at governments* oops.

2007-03-20 [DanClark]: Ah, but power and intelligence do not go hand in hand. Even most extremists lack the intellect.

2007-03-20 [Estantia]: most extremists lose the intellect because they are extreme... it can blind you.

2007-04-27 [thoughtfox]: Not necessarily true. One can be extreme and intelligent. Verwoerd was the frontrunning Prime Minister in Apartheid, he could be considered extreme: he was also amazingly intelligent. The same can be said of Hitler. And certainly our friends in terrorism have to be given credit for their well-planned attacks, and they're extremists.

2007-04-27 [Estantia]: i emant extremes of emotion rather than actions... but i do admit, hatred or rage can sharpen or dull intellect

2007-05-03 [thoughtfox]: I'd like to enlist the class's help for my Philosophy test. I think we're all quite interested in Philosophy of religion, hence we're in a Metaphysics class. I'll introduce the 3 topics we're doing: God's existence, whether we should believe in God regardless of evidence, and whether the meaning of life depends on God. I've put them up on wikis which I hope will be added to the class. Please feel free to contribute. here's the first discussion on whether we should believe in God even if there's no evidence: Supposing He Doesn't Exist

2007-05-04 [Estantia]: Hm, you've also got to consider the consequences of belief in that. Remember that belief generally gives people guidelines and something to believe in, a reason not to stray off the straight and narrow. It also forms strong bonds, of both friendship AND perceived prejudice, though thank goodness that is decreasing nowadays many churches in particular still disapprove of homosexuals. That's just one example, but there are arguments either way.

Personally I think most people need SOMETHING to believe in to carry on with life despite the hardships, religion is one, hope for a better life is another, work, other people, corruptness of the system... Whatever it is, they need something, otherwise they'd probably go mad, or at least emo...

2007-05-04 [Estantia]: By the way, should I actually join the student list rather than just hang around and debate like an assistant professor :P

2007-05-18 [DanClark]: If you'd like.

I'm happy that the class is progressing with my lack of involvement. Unfortunately my duties at work are consuming any free time I may have had. I hope that you will all bear with me for the next little while. If I see that I cannot guide these discussions any further, I will ask to be replaced.

2007-05-19 [Estantia]: the thing about metaphysics is that it doesn't precisely need guiding, just someone to ask a question that can spark off a debate.

2007-05-20 [The Voice of Difference]: "People don't need a deity. They need faith in themselves." -Me

2007-05-20 [thoughtfox]: Sigmund Freud argues otherwise. He says that because people don't have faith in themselves, they need to believe in God, even if there isn't one.

2007-05-20 [Estantia]: I think people just need SOMETHING to believe in, whether it's themselves, a deity, magic, anything really. Just faith and hope to keep going.

2007-05-21 [thoughtfox]: Well, you get evidentialists who don't believe anything without sufficient evidence. And you get skeptics who claim that it is impossible to know anything. I suppose neither rules out belief. Evidentialists can believe that they have sufficient evidence for things, eg. Descartes felt he had enough evidence to know God existed, and if I were a skeptic, I'd find life very difficult if I didn't know OR believe anything. Kind of like the ruler of the Universe in Douglas Adams's Hitch-hiker's guide.

2007-05-21 [Estantia]: and if you REALLY fall to the bottom you can be pessimistic and believe everyone's only out for themselves. It doesn't matter whether it's true, you can still believe in the faithlessless of humanity.

2007-05-21 [thoughtfox]: The problem is that anything you consider will be a belief. I could say that I refuse to accept anything on the basis of belief, but in doing that it implies that i BELIEVE that belief is not justifiable. You'd have to stop thinking to stop believing.

2007-05-22 [Estantia]: Yes, in my opinion that's what makes humans so resilient, even if everything crumbles down around them they still have that belief, that hope that it can't get worse, or they will find something they can shine at, or someone to love, so they carry on going. When people give up that hope and belief... are they still alive? Or just a shell?

2007-05-22 [thoughtfox]: Ok. We need to define belief. It sounds like you're talking about hope. We have those. They're called pessimists. They're not necessarily lifeless.

2007-05-22 [The Voice of Difference]: They believe that everything isn't the right way.

2007-05-23 [Estantia]: no I'm not just talking about hope. I guess when I said 'believe' I meant it more in the way of 'a reason to keep going.' Does that show what I mean better? Believing in love and keeping going because you KNOW someone's out there that's right.

2007-05-24 [The Voice of Difference]: Why does it have to be God?

2007-05-24 [thoughtfox]: That's quite different from the belief in the faithlessness of humanity you discussed earlier, Estantia. And it's not every human that has a reason, or faith, to keep going, or no one would commit suicide.

2007-05-24 [Estantia]: That's why my first explanation was a bit twisted, I tried to include everything. I never said it had to be god, the way people can believe in faithlessness is that everyone else is only out for themselves, so the person should be only out for themselves and may be determined to beat them at their own game and it's ok to sink that low.

the bit about suicide is when I said about losing hope, if they lose that reason to continue going then there's two pheasable options, those that end it because there's no point and those that just carry on as a kind of shell (hard to explain, think auto pilot) until they find another reason to continue.

My mind and ideas can be so hard to explain, does that make sense though?

2007-05-25 [thoughtfox]: Ok, now it does. Perhaps you've read "A Wild Sheep Chase" by Haruki Murakami? That seems to portray both 'the shell' and your entire conept of a reason to live.

Looking at it that way, and looking at many of my friends (some of whom, unfortunately for their sake, do Philosophy) I do find some strange resilience in their belief. Strange I say, because their beliefs are unfounded and unquestioned, but give them meaning to their life.

I actually envy them. Ignorance really is bliss.

2007-05-25 [Estantia]: I've never read that, I've come up with all my ideas by myself, occasionally I tweak them to fit situations I've seen, but in general it's just common sense...

as I said, belief doesn't have to be religious, after all, the best definition of belief I have come across is: Belief is knowledge without proof. (or something along those lines) I think that's a pretty good description

2007-05-26 [thoughtfox]: Look out for it, you may like it. I think you'll find any Murakami interesting.

I disagree with your definition of belief. Knowledge requires belief, but it's not the other way round. The ancient Greeks believed that the Earth was flat. They didn't know it's round.
I won't delve too deeply into epistemology, but one theory is that knowledge is infallible belief: it's belief in something which can't possibly be wrong.
Belief is merely accepting or thinking that something is true. If you believe God exists, you think it's true that God exists. If you believe he doesn't, you think it's true that he doesn't. So one can believe without religion. Another belief is that I am doing well in my courses. You believe that hope is necessary for a meaningful life. Some people believe that Orlando Bloom is hot.
One could be justified (have proof) or unjustified in these beliefs. I'm justified in believing I'm doing well in my courses because I'm getting good marks. I'm unjustified in believing that the moon is made of cheese.

2007-05-27 [Estantia]: As I said, that is the best (simple) definition I've come across, the one I gave is mostly applied to belief about things which we don't know, the example with your course results could be seen as Knowing rather than simply belief.

(I don't THINK I quoted the theory of knowledge teacher there...)

2007-05-29 [DanClark]: Wow. Very impressive debate.
I would hazard that faith is belief without proof. Belief is the act of willing something to be true based upon the smallest (and/or most obvious) of facts. I think it is more faith that you are discussing. Belief is a personal deduction based on events that have been experienced, faith could be taken as belief in that which has been explained, but not experienced.

2007-05-29 [Estantia]: I was trying to discuss belief, but it may have been slipping into faith by accident... My arguments can be interpreted in a way I don't mean them to...

2007-05-30 [thoughtfox]: I again don't see why one can't have faith with proof. I don't think that our many priests who certainly have faith, and perhaps have had personal revelations that led to that faith, don't believe that they have proof. They think they do.

2007-05-30 [Estantia]: Very true, does anyone else find it ironic that most religions seemed to be based in the same values with different ways to go about it? More ironic still is that it's those small differences that cause wars.

2007-05-31 [Urecht]: Ive come in a little late on this debat. Usually I just read them myself but I didn't catch the topic this time. Can anyone fill me in?

2007-05-31 [Estantia]: we're talking about various aspects of belief, what the proper definition is, difference from faith, and what effect it can have on everything, also whether someone who can't find something to believe in (be it religion , the chance to find true love, being the boss etc) becomes a shell (belief that things will get better) or commits suicide (lost belief in anything.)

2007-06-03 [Urecht]: Well I can definatley tell you that without a belief in someone or thing you can't keep on going, That is unless you have an amazingly high level of will power. I myself suffer from depresion and often get suicidal thoughts. Before, I couldn't even get up in the mourning, now I have found someone to believe in and it makes life possible. Belief is not something you can live without. Even if its in yourself or God you still must have beliefs. Its an integral part of life.

2007-06-03 [Estantia]: pretty much what we came up with, but is that faith in yourself or belief in yourself?

(Why does it always come down to language issues?)

2007-06-03 [Urecht]: Dang language barrariers *shakes fist.
Id have to say thats belief in anything really, I was just using yourself and God as ideas.

2007-06-03 [Estantia]: same, but you can believe something is true and that's not nearly so profound

2007-06-04 [thoughtfox]: So given that, let's try focus this topic a little. Should we believe in God? On one hand, belief in God may give hope to a life that may otherwise not have any. On the other, such hope, given a possibility that there may not be a God, may prove false. Should we hope in something that may be dashed?

2007-06-04 [Estantia]: I don't like the idea of being obliged to believe in something, which is what should implies, it depends upon the person, their life, where they were brought up... saying that someone SHOULD believe in a god brings a bad taste to my mouth, I think that if you believe it should be because you WANT to, not because it might be best for you.

2007-06-19 [The Voice of Difference]: You could say that it's a little biased.

2007-06-19 [Estantia]: which statement? mine or his, to be fair there's a bit of both, but I'd say the same thing (less vehemently) if they just said religion.

2007-06-21 [The Voice of Difference]: Not your statement, but the whole idea in general, based on both of your comments.

2007-06-21 [Estantia]: I see what you mean... but I'm not really biased towards religion or not, I just think people should decide for themselves, not do what someone told them to do or do it because it's 'cool'. It's ok to come to the same conclusion if you've actually thought about it yourself.

2007-06-22 [thoughtfox]: In other words, belief should be rationalised beforehand?

2007-06-23 [The Voice of Difference]: I was under the impression that it was taught, and most at a young age. You can't really know at that age what is right and wrong, unless it's taught to you. So therefore, if you are raised in a family that has you go to a sunday school or whatever, that's all you'll know. Now, maybe when you get older some light is shed on that subject. That's how I interpret it as biased. If you were raised to think that way, that's all you'll think. So to 'them' it wouldn't be a question of rationalism, but simply 'faith,' right?

2007-06-23 [Estantia]: I see what you mean, but at some point they shouldn't just follow blindly, but actually think about what they're doing. I was raised in a christian school but never went to church, my family are also thinkers, so it didn't take long for me to start thinking about what they were telling me.

2007-06-24 [thoughtfox]: It's true. I can think of a number of ways I've reacted against things I was indoctrinated into believing, due to rational thought. But one can always argue that it was due to indoctrination by a broader social circle.
But I think of long-term indoctrination such as Apartheid... everyone is critical of people who still give nostalgic looks to the 'good old days' because one can't deny that overall freedom and non-racism is a far better policy, despite the growing pains. People need to start thinking for themselves, and stop following blind tradition.

2007-06-24 [Estantia]: You have to admit that there will always be misunderstandings of some sort. However we are going in the right direction, we ARE generally more tolerant these days (thank god... any god) so at least there is hope. But then again there's always hope *smiles*

2007-06-24 [thoughtfox]: One could also say we're going too far in one direction. One could point to increasing violence, or perhaps the fact that generally, people don't accept responsibility (consider Popcorn by Ben Elton).

2007-06-25 [Estantia]: I may be fortunate to have a large selection of mature people as friends, but seeing as they're all over the world it does show something's right at least.

2007-06-27 [The Voice of Difference]: I found that those people are still few and far between.

2007-06-27 [Estantia]: I must be be lucky then...

2007-06-27 [thoughtfox]: You said it yourself, Estantia, they're all over the world. Compare that size to the population you've selected it from. You certainly are lucky on a number of grounds, but overall, humans are not quite that mature.

2007-06-28 [The Voice of Difference]: I couldn't have said it better myself.

2007-06-28 [Estantia]: no, not that mature or open minded, but if you have the high end of the scale then you must also have the low end, it's a matter of balance, amd balance is important by anyone's standards...

2007-12-23 [Imperator]: [Sunrose], could you open EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) for me?

2007-12-23 [Sunrose]: Okay :)

2007-12-23 [Imperator]: Hmmmmm, I still can't edit it... Did you set it to "freely editable"?

2007-12-23 [Sunrose]: I thought I did, but it's possible that it was undone by [TheRogue] :)

2008-04-27 [Imperator]: What do you suggest should be the name of the department instead?

2008-04-28 [Imperator]: If you feel that "paranormal" would make a better title you may transfer this page and change all the necessary links but I don't understand what is discussed on this page well enough to make decisions like that.

2008-04-28 [Estantia]: There isn't really much page-wise, and there have been plenty of discussions on true metaphysics, but simply no pages on those subjects.

2008-04-28 [Estantia]: #I'm not disagreeing there, but don't know enough to make a page and I think the teachers are fairly inactive.

2008-04-28 [Estantia]: is there a place already for paranormal things? I would expect the religion one to be somewhere. EVP IS phenomena though.

2008-04-28 [Estantia]: it pretty much is dead that's the only thing... i don't know if making it paranormal would help or not.

2008-09-22 [stevenp]: so really what has happended on this site it seems that all of the orginals are dying off and elftown is losing its spark? am i the only one seeing this?

2008-09-22 [The Voice of Difference]: No, Elftown is dying off, it just has some die-hard fans who really appreciate it, and then the losers who want to fuck it up. It's entertaining, actually.

2008-09-22 [Estantia]: Really? That seems a bit silly, I manage to make new friends through rping fine...

2008-09-22 [The Voice of Difference]: Some people don't like RP-ing. While others thinks they needs a DM (Excuse my reference).

2008-09-23 [stevenp]: i will agree with the above statements, now that i have settled down in a stable location again, (i quit fema) ill be on more often again and will do my part, and thats why i asked a question and didnt state anything because i still love the site and want to stay a part of it