True, i read it wrong i thought he meant there was no proof there were actually atoms >_>
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Relatively thought-provoking questions?
- Thread starter Luigi Ka-master
- Start date
SSBMasterFox
Smash Ace
Not that I want to post a one-liner, but all I wanted to say to that was lol.
(laughing not at you, but with you) [<----------- only reason i say that is because sarcasm is sometimes difficult to sense online, m'kay, GoldShadow?]
Right, not what I meant at all. Just so we're all completely cool, I do think there are atoms, they're just not a big deal to me.KevinM said:
Mr.Lombardi34
Smash Ace
KevinM, do you, by any chance have a cousin named Derek (not to change the topic but im curious)
180OP
Smash Journeyman
^Your second last paragraph is not really time travel because again you are consistently changing as time goes on. Everything is subject to time.
Going from east to west in a second doesn't mean you went back in time. You added hours to your 'day' because of the human placed standards of 'days' and 'hours'. In reality you expired one second in your travel which is equivalent to someone saying a simple 'hello'. Another reason why that isn't time travel is because the events which occurred in the East are not undone by your one second travel to the west.
I wonder how severely autistic people perceive the world and their thoughts about their talents.
Has anyone seen the BBC Documentary "The Boy With the Incredible Brain"? it's about a guy who sees numbers as shapes and feels different emotions with each number. He has incredible mathematical abilities such as calculating a fraction such as 97/13 to the 100th decimal place. He sees the answers as shapes and claims the answers come spontaneously without him actually having to think. It is on spikedhumor if you want to see it.
Going from east to west in a second doesn't mean you went back in time. You added hours to your 'day' because of the human placed standards of 'days' and 'hours'. In reality you expired one second in your travel which is equivalent to someone saying a simple 'hello'. Another reason why that isn't time travel is because the events which occurred in the East are not undone by your one second travel to the west.
I wonder how severely autistic people perceive the world and their thoughts about their talents.
Has anyone seen the BBC Documentary "The Boy With the Incredible Brain"? it's about a guy who sees numbers as shapes and feels different emotions with each number. He has incredible mathematical abilities such as calculating a fraction such as 97/13 to the 100th decimal place. He sees the answers as shapes and claims the answers come spontaneously without him actually having to think. It is on spikedhumor if you want to see it.
The Mad Hatter
Smash Ace
Images of atoms
(computerized image from microscope)
Have you guys ever heard about fusion and fission? Ask the Japanese if they believe in atoms. (Hiroshima)
(computerized image from microscope)
Have you guys ever heard about fusion and fission? Ask the Japanese if they believe in atoms. (Hiroshima)
dr.neo
Smash Champion
That looks like the pit off of mortal combat when you knock the person off the level.
mukoe890
Smash Apprentice
DUDE THATS INSANE! i used to think the exact same thing u just typed. except i never told it to anyone cuz they probably wouldve thought I was nuts. thats really scary...
Luigi Ka-master
Smash Lord
Uhh...new question status?
This is probably more of an opinion-based question rather than having an answer supported by facts, but anyways...
Potential vs Passion...does one's passion for something have an affect on one's potential for that something? I mean, this could seem like a pretty easy answer, the answer being yes, it does, because that passion motivates one to improve at whatever it is that they're doing, thus giving them more potential...
but the problem I found is that, I dunno, I guess I've always thought the word potential to mean something that's pre-determined in someone, but I guess that isn't necessarily what potential is.
Potential: capable of being or becoming
Now that I look at it, my question is more about just potential...which leads me to a different question...could one's passion for something be somewhat of a sign as to that persons potential of that certain thing?
Before I start making even less sense, I'm just gonna ask for other people's opinions on the matter. So?
This is probably more of an opinion-based question rather than having an answer supported by facts, but anyways...
Potential vs Passion...does one's passion for something have an affect on one's potential for that something? I mean, this could seem like a pretty easy answer, the answer being yes, it does, because that passion motivates one to improve at whatever it is that they're doing, thus giving them more potential...
but the problem I found is that, I dunno, I guess I've always thought the word potential to mean something that's pre-determined in someone, but I guess that isn't necessarily what potential is.
Potential: capable of being or becoming
Now that I look at it, my question is more about just potential...which leads me to a different question...could one's passion for something be somewhat of a sign as to that persons potential of that certain thing?
Before I start making even less sense, I'm just gonna ask for other people's opinions on the matter. So?
I see what you're saying. It could be a sign, but it in no way or shape has to be. Undoubtedly, if a person has a great passion for a hobby or a sport they will practice tirelessly and improve, but they can still have horribly potential; I really enjoy playing the guitar but my hands just weren't meant for playing certain chords. However, if it's something that they are physically capable of doing, then I say they create their potential through training if they are enthusiastic enough.
So in sum: passion will always make a person better, but potential is in many ways can or can't they ever do something, and this really isn't affected by how hard they try.
So in sum: passion will always make a person better, but potential is in many ways can or can't they ever do something, and this really isn't affected by how hard they try.
digitalmaster287
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2004
- Messages
- 240
Ive always wondered, whether or not a person who was blind from birth still has dreams.
digitalmaster287
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2004
- Messages
- 240
Thanks for that, Ive been wondering that for a while now, but never bothered trying to search the net for it.
Luigi Ka-master
Smash Lord
My answer to potential thing:
It all depends on whether things are predetermined or not. Actually, now that I think about it it's hard to give an answer because you would have to do an experiment with excactly the same person in all the same conditions besides passion.
I'd hypothesize that the person without the passion would do less well in whatever he or she is doing. However the problem here is interpreting these results, and defining potential.
I'll define potential as the maximum possible achievement.
Because it is the maximum possible achievement, the one with less passion will clearly have less potential because they will reach a lower maximum than the other.
Of course, if potential is defined as predicted maximum possible achievement (in other words, the same as the previous definition except with incomplete information), the outcome of said experiment will determine your answer. If the guy with passion gets better than the guy without passion (and everything else is the same), and this is repeated to satisfaction, then people with passion will generally have more potential than people who don't. If results go the other way round, so do the conclusions.
I think I made several assumptions there so if you are counter-arguing look at those.
It all depends on whether things are predetermined or not. Actually, now that I think about it it's hard to give an answer because you would have to do an experiment with excactly the same person in all the same conditions besides passion.
I'd hypothesize that the person without the passion would do less well in whatever he or she is doing. However the problem here is interpreting these results, and defining potential.
I'll define potential as the maximum possible achievement.
Because it is the maximum possible achievement, the one with less passion will clearly have less potential because they will reach a lower maximum than the other.
Of course, if potential is defined as predicted maximum possible achievement (in other words, the same as the previous definition except with incomplete information), the outcome of said experiment will determine your answer. If the guy with passion gets better than the guy without passion (and everything else is the same), and this is repeated to satisfaction, then people with passion will generally have more potential than people who don't. If results go the other way round, so do the conclusions.
I think I made several assumptions there so if you are counter-arguing look at those.
Bailey
Smash Hero
I have always loved the fact that even when we were cavemen we still knew how to stay in groups and protect one another. This thread was keeping me in the PRoom keep it alive.
Zabutur
Smash Apprentice
that of course, being the assumption that the world did not appear through Creation.
I guess having Asperger's Syndrome really does make you omewhat indifferent to people's thought's.
as far as the AS is concerned, I have it. I wasn't directing it at any of you all.
(what is Aspersger's? look it up on Wikipedia!)
I guess having Asperger's Syndrome really does make you omewhat indifferent to people's thought's.
as far as the AS is concerned, I have it. I wasn't directing it at any of you all.
(what is Aspersger's? look it up on Wikipedia!)
Bailey
Smash Hero
Also I am very interested in Emotions I know somewhere else in this thread it was said but I truly love how one can go from upset and depressed to happy and in a great mood.
SloT
Smash Journeyman
if we cant go into deep thought without words, then how did we create languages Gamer4Fire oo?
u people lost me...
language is gradually formed from the vocal sounds we've accompanied with objects or ideas..and evolved into words.
here's a cartoony example i'll make up...
speech is just an action. when a dog barks, growls, and whines...it all means different things. Those ARE its words.
Lets say a caveman only has those dumb capabilities presently, and now wants to advance his communication skills into more specific things.
What does god, alah, rah, jehova, etc all have in common?
they all have the "ah" sound...the most basic, primitave, simple sound anyone can possibly make.
And pretty much the most basic, primitive, simple thought/idea anyone can have is "wtf"
Lighting strikes, and Caveman Bob grunts an "ah' and can only think "WTF"...according to human-nature, obviously something...some-...one caused it. Lets call this unknown force "ah"...and over time...perhaps it just might evolve into the world "god"
and the two, speech and idea, become associated with one another.
Another way language is developed is through mimicry. I'm sure alot started via onomatopoeia. Lets say Caveman Bob hears a bear roaring. and he communicates the idea of bear to his friends by mimicing the roar "brauaughhh!!" u give it a few 100 years...and you have alot of words that sound the same....eventually you have to individualize those sound-words more and more until they no longer resemble their origins. "Brauuuhghgh" has now turned into "bear".
Again this is just a cartoony example...but it is how language develops.
language is gradually formed from the vocal sounds we've accompanied with objects or ideas..and evolved into words.
here's a cartoony example i'll make up...
speech is just an action. when a dog barks, growls, and whines...it all means different things. Those ARE its words.
Lets say a caveman only has those dumb capabilities presently, and now wants to advance his communication skills into more specific things.
What does god, alah, rah, jehova, etc all have in common?
they all have the "ah" sound...the most basic, primitave, simple sound anyone can possibly make.
And pretty much the most basic, primitive, simple thought/idea anyone can have is "wtf"
Lighting strikes, and Caveman Bob grunts an "ah' and can only think "WTF"...according to human-nature, obviously something...some-...one caused it. Lets call this unknown force "ah"...and over time...perhaps it just might evolve into the world "god"
and the two, speech and idea, become associated with one another.
Another way language is developed is through mimicry. I'm sure alot started via onomatopoeia. Lets say Caveman Bob hears a bear roaring. and he communicates the idea of bear to his friends by mimicing the roar "brauaughhh!!" u give it a few 100 years...and you have alot of words that sound the same....eventually you have to individualize those sound-words more and more until they no longer resemble their origins. "Brauuuhghgh" has now turned into "bear".
Again this is just a cartoony example...but it is how language develops.
SuperBowser
Smash Lord
i think there was an experiment where they put a bunch of deaf children together with no proper contact with the outside world. they formed a complex sign language by themselves.
also, apparrently if you haven't been taught any language by the time you reach 5 (around there) you will never develop the abliity to understand/use language!!
also, apparrently if you haven't been taught any language by the time you reach 5 (around there) you will never develop the abliity to understand/use language!!
Sporkman
Smash Ace
Incorrect. Age 4/5 is known as the critical period, after that stage language becomes much harder to learn and understand. You wouldn't lose the ability to use/understand/learn langauge if you haven't already done so by age 5. Cases in point: Genie and the wild children.
My teacher gave an example of how brain works in terms of learning, he said something along the lines of:
When you're born you're brain is a clean slate, over time the brain communication things engrave their tracks onto the brain, getting deeper and deeper, and making it harder to learn new stuff.
I think that was it.
Where are you from? Is it not commonly pronounced 'God' [rhymes with 'Sod', providing you don't say 'sahd']. Jehova is a stretch too, more of a 'vuh' sound over here.Cyphus said:
oh, i'm sorry..did i forget to say it was a silly example?
either way, if u read my 2nd example..it explains how the way we pronounce words now, are different from its original form. "ah" and "ugh" i'm sure, used by early man, were pretty much the same thing, before they were considered different sounds. How you pronounce god/jehova now, is not neccessarily how they pronounced it back in the day. That was the entire purpose of my 2nd example...
either way, if u read my 2nd example..it explains how the way we pronounce words now, are different from its original form. "ah" and "ugh" i'm sure, used by early man, were pretty much the same thing, before they were considered different sounds. How you pronounce god/jehova now, is not neccessarily how they pronounced it back in the day. That was the entire purpose of my 2nd example...
Continuous Conn
Smash Rookie
This sounds like the classic Language of thought Hypothesis. Perhaps our thoughts occur in a kind of mental language which is not altogether different from our natural spoken language in regards to its systematicity and productivity. If you accept this at least partially, it's not hard to conceive a thinking being who doesn't posses a natural language. I, however, wouldn't be too presumptuous in assuming that someone who doesn't posses a natural language, e.g. spoken language, does not have a language at all. Some would argue convincingly that pre-linguistic babies have thoughts.
MASAHIROx
Smash Lord
excellent first post continuous welcome to the boards!
what happens when we die?
what happens when we die?
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
This is my thought provoking questiong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSy9W3gIhnQ ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSy9W3gIhnQ ?
Luigi Ka-master
Smash Lord
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
I'm wondering how it all works.
Marriage, child custody, sex, school, college, division of interest, nervous system, breathing, eating/drinking ect.
My biggest question is, Can one head be fully submerged underwater for an indefinite amount of time and be fine? The other head could do all of the breathing, eating and drinking, they share the same lungs and digestive tract.
Marriage, child custody, sex, school, college, division of interest, nervous system, breathing, eating/drinking ect.
My biggest question is, Can one head be fully submerged underwater for an indefinite amount of time and be fine? The other head could do all of the breathing, eating and drinking, they share the same lungs and digestive tract.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
I cannot imagine that being entirely true. I was under the impression that both brains can controll both sides of the body, otherwise the brains would have to impossibly coordinate with each other digestion, pain sensory and other sub-concious processes. What would dictate what brain each organ is assigned to, especially organs that are in both halves of the sigittal plain?
Also, if each head was only in control of half the body then I wonder how the hemispheres are divided for each brain. Because, in a normal body, the left hemisphere of the brain controls the right part of the body. But in this case, if one brain already only controlled one part of the body, would that control be further subdivided into the left hemisphere controlling the right quarer of her half?
Also, if each head was only in control of half the body then I wonder how the hemispheres are divided for each brain. Because, in a normal body, the left hemisphere of the brain controls the right part of the body. But in this case, if one brain already only controlled one part of the body, would that control be further subdivided into the left hemisphere controlling the right quarer of her half?
So, say you could travel back in time and kill your biological grandfather before he meets your grandmother, what would happen? If you did kill your grandfather, your parents would never have been conceived and as such, you wouldn't either. Does this mean that you couldn't have traveled back in time after all? But since you didn't travel back in time, your grandfather is still alive to have children(your parents)and in which, that would mean that you too, are still alive, but since your alive, that would mean you could have traveled back in time and kill your grandfather. lol wut.
I love the grandfather paradox.
I love the grandfather paradox.
If you really want an answer to that a la Back To The Future style, here's my explanation(I mean, come on now, the problem in your paradox are the first 8 words). There are multiple time lines. When you travel back and kill your grandfather, that would mean that you can't be born in that time line again. Or let me put it this way, you're actually not killing YOUR grandfather, but somebody else's.
This is nothing scientifically of course. Just giving a pretty unrealistic answer to an unrealistic question.
This is nothing scientifically of course. Just giving a pretty unrealistic answer to an unrealistic question.
AColdFrictionySamus 2 PoopOn'
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
- Messages
- 32
"Put your best foot forward. If you're not sure which foot is your best, you could flip a coin, or have your feet run a race."
Space Ghost has always given me questions to provoke my thought.
Space Ghost has always given me questions to provoke my thought.
Sporkman
Smash Ace
Are you serious? Try pressing that little button down. It's the same as a laptop, you close the monitor, pushing down the button at the fold, which in turn, makes the screen go really dark.
PurpleStuff
Smash Apprentice
I'm responding to the creator's original post.
While it is true that language affects the way the human mind thinks, it is certainly possible to use your brain to full capacity, even if you were unable to communicate in any way.
It goes kind of like this-
When you are born, you have a Tabula Rasa. A clean slate. An empty mind. When you see your first cat, you do not know that it is called a "cat". You do not really know anything about it; whether it is the only one of its kind, whether it is a different cat from the next on you see, etc. But as you progress, you pile more and more objects into your "clean slate" so that now when you look at something that is big, red, and spherical, you think of a big red ball. You are able to reference these things by comparing them to other objects or experiences you have encountered, or read about, or whatever.
So language is simply a method of speaking aloud (or signing, or writing, communicating) these "forms" your slate has absorbed and filed away.
Think about it - what are all mythological creatures like? Other, real creatures.
A pegasus is just a horse with wings.
A dragon is a winged, or unwinged magical serpent.
A griffin is a mix between an eagle and a lion.
A chimera is a grotesque combination of monkey, goat, serpent, lion, and rooster (or any combination of animals, depending on the origin).
The human brain cannot postulate things it has no comparison for. It is impossible to think of an idea, or mythological animal, or alien, or sense, or emotion, or color that is not a derivative or synthesis of "forms" you have experienced in your life time.
But to actually answer your question - yes, a person without any idea of a codified "language" would still possess the cumulative experiences it has witnessed, and be able to contemplate them entirely internally.
While it is true that language affects the way the human mind thinks, it is certainly possible to use your brain to full capacity, even if you were unable to communicate in any way.
It goes kind of like this-
When you are born, you have a Tabula Rasa. A clean slate. An empty mind. When you see your first cat, you do not know that it is called a "cat". You do not really know anything about it; whether it is the only one of its kind, whether it is a different cat from the next on you see, etc. But as you progress, you pile more and more objects into your "clean slate" so that now when you look at something that is big, red, and spherical, you think of a big red ball. You are able to reference these things by comparing them to other objects or experiences you have encountered, or read about, or whatever.
So language is simply a method of speaking aloud (or signing, or writing, communicating) these "forms" your slate has absorbed and filed away.
Think about it - what are all mythological creatures like? Other, real creatures.
A pegasus is just a horse with wings.
A dragon is a winged, or unwinged magical serpent.
A griffin is a mix between an eagle and a lion.
A chimera is a grotesque combination of monkey, goat, serpent, lion, and rooster (or any combination of animals, depending on the origin).
The human brain cannot postulate things it has no comparison for. It is impossible to think of an idea, or mythological animal, or alien, or sense, or emotion, or color that is not a derivative or synthesis of "forms" you have experienced in your life time.
But to actually answer your question - yes, a person without any idea of a codified "language" would still possess the cumulative experiences it has witnessed, and be able to contemplate them entirely internally.