May 9, 2024: The May '24 Report is up.
News: April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Shaman should enshroud itself.I can get behind this plan. The modified version.
The rest attack incredibly fast guy with all their might.
Goblin should cower in fear behind the cart, andonlyattack the partyif they are almost doneat all.
It all comes down to energy states and patterns...This argument seems to remind me of those arguments that the identity is based more on the physical body than the mind. I disagree with that line of argumentation for reasons I'm willing to outline again if you want.
Well, the only other way would be to quote the quote you want to reference a bunch of times and then pare it down each time, which is way too inefficient to use.Or...quote it once, insert quote tags in the middle.
Sorry for the confusion twas a generalized statement about the game in general, but the point is that he's not gonna make things easier for us for the sake of speeding things up.True, but it's kinda pointless to add roadblocks when we can just back up and try again. And again. And again.
Easier than copy/pasting the hell out of all the quotes in the text wall.What makes you think that's what people do? It's certainly not the most effective way to do stuff.
@GWG: Actually, the problem with the 5 axioms is that while you can use 4 of them to prove the first four (you can use 2,3,4 and 5 to prove 1, for example), you can't use 1,2,3 and 4 to prove number 5. It has been proven that proving 5 using the other 4 is impossible.Like it matters which axiom could be proved from the others.
Number 5 is the one that talks about parallel lines. So, if you change number 5, you get non-euclidean geometries.
Ah, but you can't define identity. You can name some of its parts, like your name, your hobbies, whatever, but you can't explain what it is without invoking itself (you're certainly welcome to try, and I'd like to see you succeed). And I did mention that to deconstruct identity, you need to deconstruct human thought due to the way the concept of things being what they are is integral to its basic functioning. Hence why you can't deconstruct human thought with itself (here we can see my problem with the 'bit-by-bit' method of quoting - it removes context and points need to be restated repeatedly).I notice that you're not addressing my points so much as saying "you're wrong and I'm right".
Another problem that I'm seeking an answer to with the question about identical twins is the issue about difference in experiences. You mentioned previously that you can see no difference between two molecularly identical people even though they have different experiences ever since the moment of cloning. Identical twins were actually the same cell in the very beginning of their development, which goes even further than the aforementioned similarity. All that differentiates them is experience. At what point is their identical origin made irrelevant by experience? Are they at any point interchangeable?I never said they weren't different, I said that you can't call one "the real Harry" and one "the fake Harry". They have equal right to claim being Harry.
Finally, you're not replying to a bunch of things. You're replying to a single post....Huh?
"This is you last chance to avoid my wrath. Take me to Seham peacefully or I will kill you.""I'm sure. Look, you'll have to give up the armor if you want to get inside, so you might as well give it to us now."
Kyle says looking none to amused.
Physics is limited to 2km, which you all seem to have forgotten.That's a minor issue. It's the doing, not the being-done.
Danny tried something like this before. Guess what happened.The "planet-destroyer debris belt"?
...Asteroid on ksc domeDoes that make it the Dome of the Rock? [/badumtish]
imgur.com/a/XGNKi
You can think about it, though. I have been. This is just something that, in your own words, raises questions.It's not really an attitude. It's a fact. You can't argue about something you can't properly think about. That's how you get stuck in a web of bullshit of your own making.Why are perfect clones sick, bad and wrong? Why is identity such a muddled issue? Simple: exploring it just raises too many questions."It's hard to think about, so it's bad"? That's...well...that's a loser attitude, bluntly.
Then what do you call all the definitions we've been giving it?I'm reminded of something I read about...Eucleid? Some early mathematician tried to find a bunch of axioms from which one could define the rest of geometry, and came up with five. The first four were simple, but the fifth was...complex. Eventually, though, someone used the first four to derive the fifth.Because identity is the most basic of things. We all know what it is, but we can't define it.
Why shouldn't these other things, identity and such, be similar? Shouldn't we at least try to see if we can derive these important things from more basic things?
Luckily, we're not. Thought=/=Identity.So?You can't deconstruct human thought with itself. That's the problem.
Near-identical? Yes. Identical? No.No. His experiences and personality are different. More relevant to the clone thing: Identity isn't started at birth. You can't talk about the self-image of a newborn. There's no specific time that a self-image and personality forms; I'd say it forms slowly over the first years of a child's life. It's a fuzzy area, not a "line" through time like adults' identities can be described as. You could argue that everyone starts at the same point, but not only would this be irrelevant, it would be wrong--people born in different hospitals, or even different rooms in the same hospital, or even the same room at sufficiently different times, have different experiences.But identical twins are highly similar in personality, general proclivities and life choices. If they've grown up together (as identical twins in the same family tend to), their life experiences may turn out to be near-identical as well. The most important difference between them may be their name (though, naturally, they will have subtle physical and mental differences as well).
Also, I'd appreciate it if you stopped that 'piece-by-piece' thing you always do when you quote and reply to stuff. It's incredibly annoying to respond to.How else am I supposed to reply to a bunch of things?
On a different note, I hope you don't feel offended since its the second time I replied to your posts in an argumentive manner.I find this extremely amusing.
I wonder though, didn't you mention before that you do not like dark grim themed games? Just wondering on a personal level where you draw the line.I don't remember saying that.
