• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.
nexion

nexion

coalescing in diffusion 32 From tartarus
Joined
Last seen
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
0

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • gruesomebrat
    "I am human."

    You may be the only one. Personally, I'm convinced that INTP's are, for the most part, aliens. Perhaps even the aliens that introduced the human race to planet Earth...
    Agent Intellect
    A simple way to think about it would be the Nernst equation - a simplified version of GHK equation to calculate a single ion potential:



    R = gas constant
    T = temp in Kelvin
    n = valence for ion
    F = faraday constant

    This would make (8.31 J/mol*K x 297 K) / (+1 x 96500 coulombs/mol)
    Which gives you: .0255758549 J/coulomb (joules per coulomb, which is the units of voltage)

    You multiply this by the natural logarithm of of the concentration ratio for, we'll say potassium ions (K+) where the 10K+ is the concentration of potassium ions outside the cell membrane and 100K+ is the concentration of potassium inside the cell membrane:

    .0255758549volts x ln(10K+ / 100K+) = -.058 volts = -58 millivolts

    The membrane potential for having a 10(outside) to 100 (inside) ratio of potassium ions is -58 millivolts. The GHK equation does the same thing but for all of the ions (sodium, chlorine, calcium etc).
    Words
    How does application mean confirmation?

    I think we already have access to a portion of reality. Our ideas and beliefs are real as ideas and beliefs. Falsehood is a part of reality, so certainly we also have access to that.

    The reality that you mention here is about the ones that exists outside of ourselves?
    Words
    Yes, I like charts. I really like to externalize ideas, I mean literally. Hold them almost literally in my hand and play around with them and see if I can make interesting combinations with them. And I'm not talking about charts with data wherein you conclude and connect the details to form one general idea. I'm talking about charts with *ideas* wherein you conclude and connect the ideas to form one "fact".

    Progression, eh?

    And I apologize. I'm lacking the motivation to actually create the chart and continue our discussion. Maybe I will find it tomorrow. I introduce you to my procrastination.
    JimHawkins
    Why, hello? Who is this charming figure by the name of, "nil?" Last I checked here - on this page, it was just a plain, "xxpbdudexx". He won't be missed.

    Puffy
    Ha, fair enough, why Nil?

    Essays aren't that bad depending on what you are writing on. I get to pick the titles in my degree so they usually interest me. This one has taken me 7 days to write up, which is strangely long for me. Are you in college atm?

    I reccommend reading it, it's quite a clever book. I will start on through the looking glass another time.
    nexion
    I need to break through subjective reality. If there is no inherent objectivity, then we must create it. Many different things attempt to do this, and fail. It is all because of words, language. They are the central aspect. They affect everything. If the language is subjective, vague, and the words have different meanings to different people, then the reality created by those words is going to be subjective vague, and mean different things to different people. What we need is an objective language, where there are unified grammar and punctuation rules, and where exactly one word has exactly one meaning.
    Words
    Personal meaning, to me, is undesirable simply because it does little to my logical way of thinking. Or maybe it does provoke imagination that is essential to truth. I don't know. What I do know is that I don't like relativity. Because you can't really construct with such a versatile/shifty foundation, yeah?
    Words
    Your first question reminds me of the test you shared. My answer to that same question, which is included in the test, is no. Conceptions and ideas are real. Otherwise, they wouldn't be there. Real is defined by existence.

    Reality exists. Otherwise, we wouldn't be perceiving anything. The question is which is reality.

    Many of our perceptions are only part of the "whole reality". They are false realities and yet they are true ideas within the true reality. But there *should* be one perception that ultimately lets you "see" true reality.

    I don't know if we already have access and I don't know if we will ever have that access to true reality. But I don't believe in sense experience as the basis of reality yet because I still see no proof to it. I also don't have an alternate proposition that has sufficient proof.metaphors and possible meanings using analogies i have.
    Words
    I think the statement "the atom is reducible to some *things*" is logical. Because the atom is not reducible to only one thing.

    Is the soul reducible? Maybe. I don't know the "science of the spiritual". Do you have any way of finding out?

    Is God reducible? In a societal point of view, I think yes. God came from society. In a stricter point of view, probably I don't know. What traits of God are we talking about here?
    Words
    What is your definition of "happiness"? Mine is simply "stimulation".

    Do you agree that happiness is a sort of satisfactory sensation? A sensation that doesn't destroy the person over time? An event of satisfaction "not limited in by time's standards"?
    Words
    Actually, I don't understand what you mean by "reducibly", "complex" and "irreducibly". Anything can be "complex", no? Reducible as in to find the most basic of an idea? The "atom" of the world? *Although atoms themselves are reducible*.
    nemo
    Do you think happiness is worth attaining?
    Also, do you think true happiness involves awareness and knowledge?
    *in just-having-read-1984 mood* :P
    Words
    I don't think that was dumb. It has potential. Instead, what is dumb is to think its dumb.
    Words
    For example, A specific car's purpose is transportation and not to be loved. In this case, I consider Love as false meaning. If it happens however, there is new developed pair of meaning with recycled medium(the car), which (it is important to mention) is distinctly separate from original intention wherein one is unnecessary in definition.

    My confusion will probably just infect your understanding. But I have a conclusion: objective meaning is defined by original intention whereas subjective meaning is defined as anything that is not the original meaning. Both are true indeed. But objective is preferred as it provides a "path" whereas the other does not.

    If the original meaning of the artist was to allow others to create meaning based on his art, then that is the objective. The resulting meaning(s) is only the result and therefore, "separate" and also subjective.
    Words
    -Their own interpretations, I would suggest for the sake of accuracy, "recycles" the medium of the original meaning. It is a different meaning with the same medium making it a must separate pair. In other words, it is necessarily unrelated to the original pair--the original intention. Their interpretations is unrelated to the exposed idea. The true meaning behind the medium, however, is still the original meaning. The medium has to have its purpose attached to the original intent. Otherwise, 1 =/= 1. I find it necessary to proclaim objectivity. What I mean is that origin defines meaning(by meaning, i mean purpose), not interpretation. Interpretation is subjective. Subjective meaning requires a different word to make it more distinct from objective meaning for it produces heightened relativity.
    Words
    something irreducible? You mean wholes?

    What about the number 1?

    Knowledge(Truth)?

    Perception?

    Meaning?

    Logic?

    I am not sure...
    Words
    -If there is only "your" meaning, why express it? If your meaning is understandable to someone else, would you still define it as "your" meaning? Is the issue of whether it is understandable or not the predictor of whose meaning it is? Or is meaning more of the "intention" behind the medium? My opinion is that there is no "your" meaning. There is only *the* meaning of the medium. I believe meaning does not behave in wholes, wherein created meanings just adapt to the original meaning/medium, but behaves in a sort of separate yet continuously stacking phenomenon. What am I saying again? *Your* meaning is the only meaning behind those words, therefore, it is *the* meaning. You can't change meaning. the original meaning is the only one. I may interpret it differently, but mine should be considered as "false meaning".

    -With art, I look at the qualities(Ne) and my own *false* meaning(Ti). I don't care about the artist, because its art(hard for me/I don't like hard.)
    Puffy
    Glad to hear it, why the change in name?

    I am well, just a bit flooded with work. In my semesters they save all the essays for one of the last weeks so the last 3 weeks are a bit of an essay season :) I'm working on an essay related to Alice in Wonderland atm, hence the new avatar ;)
    Words
    Is there hidden meaning in those four sentences? Are you fond of hidden meanings?

    You know, hidden meanings function the same way symbols function. A symbol is necessarily a vessel for hidden meaning. Why we suddenly chose to separate symbols, letters, words and any form of expression from themselves and from meaning is beyond me.

    To efficiently understand the world, one must simplify and categorize, no? This is why I think there is a division in the interpretation of information. "The medium of information" and the "information" itself. "How" we understand and "What" we understand. The medium is also information but it must be placed into another pair and it must be under the status of "information" and not medium, so clearly there are only two divisions.

    Is meaning necessarily dependent on perception? I don't think so. It could depend on the strength of connection. Maybe I'll try to quantify connection.
    Words
    I don't like pain so I have no choice but to live.

    When you are selecting one out of five unidentified things, what standard do you base your choice on? What are the factors that affect your decision?
    nexion
    Even if you love me, God, I'm sorry. Even if these words fall on deaf ears, I don't care. This must be said. I must validate. Because I can't believe it. I can't hold onto some fleeting belief out of hope that it is true... I can't believe that you love me, or that you particularly care for anything one way or the other, if you even exist. So... this is farewell? I will seek, but I doubt I will find. Goodbye, you, who were once my only true love...
    Words
    Neutral? Holy...Lol. Major Deja vu on my part. meta-deja vu! This was an interesting experience. Have we talked about video games before?

    Minecraft: Because of the possibilities it creates? Because of possibilities? Why are possibilities appealing to many?

    I may sound like I know the answer but I only have ideas.
    Words
    I've also discovered Minecraft a few months ago. It is quite popular, and rightly so. Do you know why though?
    Words
    Often, whether there is something else to be discovered in something is discovered when it's seemingly mundane self is being discovered. You may not know the question now, but you may find it as you go along discovering the paths first. I don't know if there is something else beneath the question but I have this strange feeling or intuition. So, excuse me, if I'm not being direct. I can't yet.

    What games are your favorites?
    Words
    I see. I was thinking it represented more than wit nor humor. In that case, what is your opinion of symbolism? what is the symbol you see in "symbol"?
    Words
    I was expecting you to answer "in the way of aesthetics", which, in my language, simply meant an unexamined meaning. The reality of your reply, however, was "I have no idea"---which, in my true opinion, fares better.

    ---

    On a separate topic, What do you think about double entendres?
    Words
    What was the intention behind it then? Surely, not just to harass my own framework of correction?
    Words
    Welcome to intpforum, nil. The lower cased letter of your first name is attacking me by the way.
    Cavallier
    Wow? It is a nice name. It's very simple and yet indicative of complexity which I find ironic since the word itself means "nothing".

    Or, I could be putting to much thought into it.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom