quote:

---

Gunslinger Moogle had this to say about dark elf butts:
Indeed, remember that one article on the prairie dogs a while back?

---

The one where they were sucking them out of their burrows in peoples' fields with the uber vacuum cleaner?

But there is a reason for it, complex as it may be, and those who find it are the enlightened.

quote:

---

JooJooFlop spewed forth this undeniable truth:
You don't like athiests, do you?

---

Actually, I like them fine. I don't dislike people based on religious preference, or lack thereof. I certainly prefer them to people who claim a faith they don't practice!

I was just clarifying the preconditional assumptions of my answer, as opposed to the ones I work off of. Morality is not exclusive to religion, but morality based on spiritual belief is. Secular morality has a different set of underlying factors that are more rational, and worth discussing. Religious morality is very personal, and not very rational. Its not worth basing a discussion between those who have disparate beliefs.

My answer to Jens' question was "because we are created by God to keep him company, and have immortal souls", but I didn't think that was what he was going for.

quote:

---

Maradon! had this to say about Cuba:
The rather simple fact that human beings are self-aware and sentient and nothing else on the planet is. We respect any life that is aware of it's own existence and thereby capable of cognative thought because each such entity is totally unique and has it's own identity just as we do.

We do not extend the same respect to life that is not aware of it's own existence and is thereby incapable of cognative thought because such entites are not totally unique, they are self replicating biological masses and nothing else. Humans try to attribute self awareness and cognative thought to such beings because it is human nature to project exclusively human attributes into things around us.

Humans are self aware and capable of cognative thought.

Animals are not.

If your dog learned to communicate and developed it's own thoughts and ideas, we'd extend the same respect to it's life.

The notion that self awareness and cognisance boils down to a superiority complex is idiotic.

---

All the higher mammals are to a certain degree conscious, and self aware. They are however, with very few exceptions, incapable of language. The animals that you are describing include insects, sponges and flatworms, not the higher mammals.

quote:

---

Toktuk was listening to Cher while typing:
Whales and dolphins communicate through defined vocal patterns. Although it's not nearly as complex as ours, I would say that qualifies as rudimentary language.

EDIT: Also, aside from the sign language that many chimps and gorillas are capable of learning, some have even been taught to speak some basic words.

-Tok

---

There are five basic criteria for a communication system to be considered language. This was even in the article regarding prairie dog language. These five criteria are:

1) Words must be capable of containing abstract meaning
2) A syntax must help determine the definition of words used
3) Collocutors must be able to "coin" new words
4) Words must be constructed from smaller bits--a morphological system must be used
5) Words must be seperated in space and time from what they represent.

Evidence is being gathered that attributes a degree of linguistic ability to animals. An interesting note is that the distance, genetically, between humans and other mammals is proportional to the difference in linguistic ability. Recently a study has shown that rats possess a rudimentary skill to differentiate between human languages. This helps reinforce Pinker's postulation that language is instinctual, and nothing in and of itself terribly special. Evolutionary markers exist for language as with other physical features of humans.

Also, addressing Pesco's comment: Language has multiple shades of meaning. When used to refer to language as defined by linguists, instead of it's broader connotation of 'communication', there are those five criteria that must be met in order for it to be applicable. The difference is similar to the Coke/Soda issue--while one may use "a coke" to refer to any carbonated soft drink, more appropriately it refers to a specific variety from a specific company.

Addressing the specifics of your post, Tok: Higher primates that have been taught specific words are capable of reproducing those words with very large limitations. The reproduction of the sign, or vocal word even, is not a symbol of language, but an arduously acquired trick. Gorrillas that know how to sign for "food" are not capable of combining that sign with a reflexive action to indicate that they are hungry. They are not capable of indicating that other gorrillas may be hungry, or may have been hungry, or may become hungry. More over, they are not capable of using that symbol for "food" and alter it into a symbol for "grub" or "chow" or any other synonymous variant that would invariably occur in language. Dolphins and whales, compared to rats, possess a large deal of linguistic talent. What they are able to communicate is very limited--they suffer similar limitations as higher primates.

Humans are the only species in which mechanisms for language have evolved fully enough to allow for language to exist.

I'm sure you can take some of what they have learned about the speech patterns of the animals and apply them to the items you have listed. But it would all be theory, so it comes down to personal opinion on the matter.

quote:

---

Pesco wrote this stupid crap:
It is hard to classify what we don't completely understand. I'm sure if you spoke with marine biologists that focused on the communication methods of dolphins, you'd probably be told they do have some form of language that we just dont know how to understand yet. I tend to agree.

I'm sure you can take some of what they have learned about the speech patterns of the animals and apply them to the items you have listed. But it would all be theory, so it comes down to personal opinion on the matter.

---

Wrong.

Go grab a basic linguistics text book, or some primary texts. I'm sure dolphins can communicate to some capacity--they don't have language, though. Moreover, it is not subjective--there is a cold empiricism about it.

quote:

---

diadem had this to say about the Spice Girls:
to answer jen's question, as it was intended; there isn't, much.

you keep looking for the logic that drives emotion for reasons other than having our species survive as a whole or instinct and evolution.

there really isn't much. but you see, the thing is, to people like, it doesn't matter in the least that there isn't any. let me explain why.

we all behave due to emotions, some sort of underlying force that drives us. without these emotions or an underlying goal, we would simply sit, not move, and starve. hunger, self preservation, the desire to reproduce, these all fall under the same lines.

to many people, why we do these things isn't really questioned. you see, it is the basis for everything we do.

for you, at least as you claim, your underlying goals are self preservation and the desire to obtain more pleasure for yourself in whatever form you can. the thing is, we can ask the same question; why.

you will be faced with a similar delima. all of these reasons are based on instinct. even self preservation. what's the point, from a logical perspective.

what is logic without emotion though? numbers. nothing more than the equevlant of a computer chip that just sits there, becuase there is no point to do anything.

so it is these emotions and instincts that drive us, that cause is to try to reach wahtever goals we have. that keep us alive. that make us be.

they are our core. self preservation, sleeping, reproduction, and the protection of our species. taught, instinctual, or whatever...

for most people, protection of others of our speices, in this case humans, is part of that core belief. so if it's taught by society or instinctual, most of us don't care at this stage in our lives. it's part of who we are.

and that's why we view human life as so important. it's part of our core.

in the end, if you break everything down enough, nothing really matters. so we don't.

you are in the same boat as us, following your core. the only diffrence is the value on human life isn't there like it is in the rest of us.

so we put laws to protect ourselevs, and let you live your own life as long as you fit into these laws, becuase we value your life even if you don't value yours.

edit: Take not that many societies don't value human life, and it isn't part of their core. Take a look at aztec history.

---

First of all: Jens', god damn you. > (((

Secondly, I'm not at all saying that I'm not bound by the same instincts, rules or irrationalities that anyone else is. I have a genetically encoded trait telling me to care about fellow human beings too. I'm just saying I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight it with tooth and nail because while my genetics may tell my subconsciousness to give a shit, my consciousness doesn't and I don't like being told what to do.

You're right that I'm in a dilemma as well. On one hand I'm not willing to accept that life has meaning, because I'm not willing to accept any arbitrary values - even values defined by evolution like survival. On the other, I want life to have a purpose, desperately, and so I keep questioning my logic. I'm not willing to delude myself, but it becomes ever clearer to me that self-delusion is necessary for meaning.

So to answer the inevitable question that'll be asked: Why not kill yourself Jens, you stupid sociopathic asshole? 'cause life feels good.

I think the point of this post, now that I think about it, was more to passively-aggressively question those of you who do accept subjective values, especially those not religious because well, even if I think you're dumb for it, I know why you think what you think (don't make an argument out of this, there's been a whole thread on the topic), but those of you who claim to be atheists I frankly don't understand. Did you replace the concept of "god" with the concept of "freedom", to make an example, and raise it on a divine pedestal? I don't get it, and I want to. Things I don't understand make me annoyed.

Jens fucked around with this message on 02-03-2005 at 02:27 AM.

quote:

---

Trillee had this to say about Knight Rider:
No language we can comprehend. Then again, we dictate what constitutes as a language and what doesn't.

---

Sorry, I didn't mean to tread on your mystical world in which ponies speak to frogs, and that it's all a fun, magical acid trip that humans are excluded from.

Wrong.

Animals lack language, just as we lack the ability to navigate by sound alone. Language isn't some magical thing--it's an instinct, an ability, that has been building up evolutionally all the way until it reached its culmination with humans, allowing for the ability to express thought and abstracts.

There is no equivocation about it, there is not "that we can comprehend" room for error. We know, empirically, that no known animal is capable of any significant form of language. Just as we can test whether or not infants can perform math, despite our inability to communicate with them, we're able to test whether animals are capable of linguistic communication. So far, no animal has proven capable of language.

Yes, we do define what constitutes a language. Astute observation. We also dictate what constitutes an opposable thumb. That, however, does not damage the significance of such an appendage. An opposable thumb is a physiological advantage that allows for technological advancement. Language, similarly, is a physiological advantage that allows for better organization, among a list of others. The definition of language is set so that it encompasses all of the requisite features necessary for the benefits observed; it is not as haphazardously defined as you'd make it out to be.

Because of this, there's allways a better animal to kill than humans. So people made a virtue out of doing the easy thing.

quote:

---

Maradon! stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
The rather simple fact that human beings are self-aware and sentient and nothing else on the planet is. We respect any life that is aware of it's own existence and thereby capable of cognative thought because each such entity is totally unique and has it's own identity just as we do.

---

I'm not sure if you posted that as a joke, or if you've forgotten just what humans tend to do to other humans.

This applies more to, say, Portugal, than say, Iraq.

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Jens wrote:
I think the point of this post, now that I think about it, was more to passively-aggressively question those of you who do accept subjective values, especially those not religious because well, even if I think you're dumb for it, I know why you think what you think (don't make an argument out of this, there's been a whole thread on the topic), but those of you who claim to be atheists I frankly don't understand. Did you replace the concept of "god" with the concept of "freedom", to make an example, and raise it on a divine pedestal? I don't get it, and I want to. Things I don't understand make me annoyed.

---

The absence of divine will does not lead directly into nihilism, it only leads to people becoming responsible for their own chosen values.

It does not follow that because there is no divine obligation to act in a way that there is no reason to act in this way. For example I may value knowledge in people, may aspire to know as much as I can myself and help others learn when presented with the opportunity. I do so because I believe that knowledge is something very unique to humans, something that most of the time has a positive effect on the individual and as society as a whole, something that helps enlighten us and better understand ourselves and our surroundings and thus should be fostered and protected. There is no divine pedestal involved in this, just my own rationale for believing this, I do not feel an outside obligation to act in this way, but I feel that it is right to act in this way.

If someone else asserts that knowledge just gets the peasants unruly and wastes money better spent on crack and whores and thus should be discouraged I cannot make any irrefutable argument that I am right and neither can he prove that he is right, one of us may be able to prove certain utilitarian arguments about whose assertion leads to what but on a moral level there will always be a stalemate in absence of divine judgement.

If you assert that saving someone who is dying puts no money in your pocket and that you value money in your pocket but not someone else's life and thus there is no reason for you to not let a person die that's your arbitrary value judgement, no one can prove that what you did was immoral.

Of course this whole thing becomes much more complicated once you throw a state with it's monopoly on force and the purpose of organizing tons of different people with different values into the mix.

quote:

---

Vorbis impressed everyone with:
Wrong.

Go grab a basic linguistics text book, or some primary texts. I'm sure dolphins can communicate to some capacity--they don't have language, though. Moreover, it is not subjective--there is a cold empiricism about it.

---

In other words, you are just going to stay in your little box then?

Ok, I can live with that. Just try to be less of an ass when it comes to someone that thinks your box isn't the right one. As I stated above it is a matter of personal opinion, since research on both sides supports what has been stated.

quote:

---

Ruvyen had this to say about John Romero:
We humans get a bonus feat at first level, four extra skill points at first level, and one extra skill point at each level beyond first.

Bad joke, I know...

---

What about in 1st and 2nd edition, what made humans so special then?

quote:

---

Verily, Alek doth proclaim:
What about in 1st and 2nd edition, what made humans so special then?

---

Not much, which is why they needed to fix them for 3rd edition.

In 2nd, only humans could be Paladins, though later they added optional rules for other races.

Palador ChibiDragon fucked around with this message on 02-03-2005 at 05:46 PM.

quote:

---

Pesco had this to say about John Romero:
In other words, you are just going to stay in your little box then?

Ok, I can live with that. Just try to be less of an ass when it comes to someone that thinks your box isn't the right one. As I stated above it is a matter of personal opinion, since research on both sides supports what has been stated.

---

Give me research that supports animals having full linguistic capacity, and I'll be more inclined to consider alternatives. As it stands, it is known empirically that language is the sole domain of humanity.

You can claim that it is personal opinion all you want, but that doesn't change the reality of it one bit. You could also decry gravity as just a narrow-minded view of the world, but you're still going to come back down every time you jump.

quote:

---

There was much rejoicing when Mod said this:
The absence of divine will does not lead directly into nihilism, it only leads to people becoming responsible for their own chosen values.

It does not follow that because there is no divine obligation to act in a way that there is no reason to act in this way. For example I may value knowledge in people, may aspire to know as much as I can myself and help others learn when presented with the opportunity. I do so because I believe that knowledge is something very unique to humans, something that most of the time has a positive effect on the individual and as society as a whole, something that helps enlighten us and better understand ourselves and our surroundings and thus should be fostered and protected. There is no divine pedestal involved in this, just my own rationale for believing this, I do not feel an outside obligation to act in this way, but I feel that it is right to act in this way.

If someone else asserts that knowledge just gets the peasants unruly and wastes money better spent on crack and whores and thus should be discouraged I cannot make any irrefutable argument that I am right and neither can he prove that he is right, one of us may be able to prove certain utilitarian arguments about whose assertion leads to what but on a moral level there will always be a stalemate in absence of divine judgement.

If you assert that saving someone who is dying puts no money in your pocket and that you value money in your pocket but not someone else's life and thus there is no reason for you to not let a person die that's your arbitrary value judgement, no one can prove that what you did was immoral.

Of course this whole thing becomes much more complicated once you throw a state with it's monopoly on force and the purpose of organizing tons of different people with different values into the mix.

---

So essentially, there is no point but what we make. Doesn't that essentially mean that unless we, or you, arbitrarily deem that Value X is something to be aspired to, Value X actually doesn't matter? Then why, if I may ask, and I may, would we ever deem Value X to matter? There's no particular rational reason to think Value X is any more desirable than Value Y. If you say knowledge is something to be aspired to, I could say okay and ask why, and you basically wouldn't know what to answer because it doesn't have any actual meaning beyond what you give it, it's just something that struck your fancy or sounded neat or you grew up with.

For meaning to exist, there must be a reason for that meaning, but then you also have to have a goal - what you ultimately want to achieve by deeming Value X to matter.

I'm not really certain if this falls under nihilism or existentialism but as I understand it, they're two sides of the same coin, where the nihilistic side believes that all subjective values are equally baseless and, thus, equal, and the other side subscribes to the philosophy that it is our priviledge and duty to create values as there are no objective ones. I don't buy into the latter, as you can probably tell.

quote:

---

Jens had this to say about Robocop:
First of all: Jens', god damn you. > (((

---

Actually, Jens's

quote:

---

Noxhil2 probably says this to all the girls:
Actually, Jens's

---

I'LL HAVE YOUR HEAD

quote:

---

And now, we sprinkle Jens liberally with Old Spice!
So essentially, there is no point but what we make. Doesn't that essentially mean that unless we, or you, arbitrarily deem that Value X is something to be aspired to, Value X actually doesn't matter? Then why, if I may ask, and I may, would we ever deem Value X to matter? There's no particular rational reason to think Value X is any more desirable than Value Y. If you say knowledge is something to be aspired to, I could say okay and ask why, and you basically wouldn't know what to answer because it doesn't have any actual meaning beyond what you give it, it's just something that struck your fancy or sounded neat or you grew up with.

---

It depends. It is possible to rationally derive an internally consistent set of values which is based on empirical observation and ethical thought. What you can't determine is if these values are absolutely correct, or universally applicable. The derivation of said values, however, need not be arbitrary, and can be rational, if you want.

quote:

---

Karnaj had this to say about Robocop:
It depends. It is possible to rationally derive an internally consistent set of values which is based on empirical observation and ethical thought. What you can't determine is if these values are absolutely correct, or universally applicable. The derivation of said values, however, need not be arbitrary, and can be rational, if you want.

---

The problem is not deriving the values, it's determining the source from which you derive the values. I don't see how it can be done, even though I'd love to.

quote:

---

Jens had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
The problem is not deriving the values, it's determining the source from which you derive the values. I don't see how it can be done, even though I'd love to.

---

You can derive values from anywhere, really. Now, to find ones that have true 'meaning'...

It depends, in a sense, without a sort of eternal, absolute divine will, it is hard to say where to derive these values from.

As Mod said, what one person values, another person does not. There is no objective force in this case (the case where absolute truth is lacking) to verify which is correct or which is incorrect.

When we are the ultimate force in the universe in terms of truth in values, then, since we can change truth with regard to values, then there really will not be any meaning to the values we have, since there is no absolute truth to the matter. Any meaning in values we have will die when we perish, or in a larger sense, will die out when those who have meaning in those values perish (or even just change their minds) In a sense, it is nihilistic.

I further agree with Karnaj that you can derive consistent values from ethical and rational observation (such as, I value living). But, still, the 'meaning' in this sense is still limited to the observer, and extends no farther than that.

In the case where there is an absolute truth, then one can derive their values based on this truth (whatever it may be), and know that the meaning in these values is not limited to themselves, or the people around them (who perish and fade away), but is consistent over time.

So, I would say that it depends on the existance of absolute truth.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Palador ChibiDragon stammered:
Not much, which is why they needed to fix them for 3rd edition.

In 2nd, only humans could be Paladins, though later they added optional rules for other races.

---

There was also dual classing, and no level limits. I had deep, deep envy of the humans when my dwarf hit 10th level fighter and couldn't ever level again unless my strength somehow increased.

quote:

---

Check out the big brain on Noxhil2!
Actually, Jens's

---

No, it's either.

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Hireko:
There was also dual classing, and no level limits. I had deep, deep envy of the humans when my dwarf hit 10th level fighter and couldn't ever level again unless my strength somehow increased.

---

Your DMs let you live long enough to reach 10th? Lucky bastard.

quote:

---

From the book of Vernaltemptress, chapter 3, verse 16:
Free. Will.

*not free willie, you smartasses.

---

Evercrest: Where the Willies are free. And rampant.