User Tag List

First 614151617 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 162

  1. #151
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Genetics tells us precisely how natural selection works, and it works without aliens.

    So Occam's Razor tells us that the hypothesis of aliens is unnecessary.
    You know that in the moment you get intrested into another mens razor you should think about your sexuality !
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #152
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Actually it doesn't. It only renders chunks in a defined radius around the player. No activity takes place outside this distance.
    Ah, I should of been clear. Once a chunk is loaded, it is defined and exists as an object (collection of objects, whatever). When the game goes to render, it doesn't just do a surface (I see the camera) render, it works will all loaded objects. I suppose it's still similar, since chunks get unloaded. The real difference is what "constitutes" observer" in Minecraft.

    Now that I think about it, I think they fixed some of this, along with the render addons.

  3. #153
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Ah, I should of been clear. Once a chunk is loaded, it is defined and exists as an object (collection of objects, whatever). When the game goes to render, it doesn't just do a surface (I see the camera) render, it works will all loaded objects. I suppose it's still similar, since chunks get unloaded. The real difference is what "constitutes" observer" in Minecraft.

    Now that I think about it, I think they fixed some of this, along with the render addons.
    Yeah, even then it isn't real time rendering. Each chunk is split up into mini chunks for rendering so it's kind of like looking at only a snapshot of the terrain since most of it isn't changing most of the time. It'll update one of these mini chunks when a block in it is changed.

    You can see this when the renderer glitches, it doesn't draw the back of stuff, and it doesn't draw filled volumes. This some times allows an 'x-ray' vision effect without any cheating.

    But yeah, it does load the entire chunk block from sky to bottom.

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    The universe may have been intelligently designed in a way that things evolve, but that doesn't make its source benevolent and worthy of worship!

  5. #155
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    The universe may have been intelligently designed in a way that things evolve, but that doesn't make its source benevolent and worthy of worship!
    Here's a question I think you'd enjoy. What if in the future of the human race we're able to sent so many particles and energy back in time that we were the ones that created the big bang and thus created our very existance?

    Wouldn't that be intelligent design on a most wonderfully ironic and paradoxial scale.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  6. #156
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    Here's a question I think you'd enjoy. What if in the future of the human race we're able to sent so many particles and energy back in time that we were the ones that created the big bang and thus created our very existance?

    Wouldn't that be intelligent design on a most wonderfully ironic and paradoxial scale.
    This is a good idea against the laws of cause and effect moving in the foward direction applying universally in every context. Time at higher levels seems much like a multi-faceted crystallization.

  7. #157
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    Here's a question I think you'd enjoy. What if in the future of the human race we're able to sent so many particles and energy back in time that we were the ones that created the big bang and thus created our very existance?

    Wouldn't that be intelligent design on a most wonderfully ironic and paradoxial scale.
    You would need to send back all the energy and particles in the universe to achieve that. However wouldn't the ever increasing age of the energy and particles prevent it from becoming a stable time loop where the increasing variance per iteration would lead to eventual failure? It could happen by either the universe somehow collapsing prematurely (possibly entropy) or make it so chaotic deviance led to an eventual loop where humans are not able to send the particles back in time. Unless of course you send them back to pre-big bang and this somehow negates their age.

    As for evolution/intelligent design I would strongly support the former (as well as seconding RW's argument that God could easily utilise evolution as his MO for life if he wanted). However I think evolution is blind and random. There is no such thing as an inherently good or bad mutation, just helpful and maladaptive ones to the environment at hand. If you survive you continue to take part in the game called life. However there are the mutations which neither help nor hinder, they survive and continue though they convey no edge. Why would God seek to evolve lifeforms with so many useless parts?

  8. #158
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    The most fascinating thing about Intelligent Design is that the world looks, it really does look, as though it has been designed.

    And so until, "The Origin of Species", it was natural and rational to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

    So it is intuitive to believe in an Intelligent Designer and counter-intuitive to believe in Natural Selection.

    So the interesting question is how did we move from an intuitive mindset to a counter-intuitive mindset?

    And an even more revealing question is why do we still think in terms of the intuitive mindset in MBTI?

  9. #159
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    The most fascinating thing about Intelligent Design is that the world looks, it really does look, as though it has been designed.

    And so until, "The Origin of Species", it was natural and rational to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

    So it is intuitive to believe in an Intelligent Designer and counter-intuitive to believe in Natural Selection.

    So the interesting question is how did we move from an intuitive mindset to a counter-intuitive mindset?

    And an even more revealing question is why do we still think in terms of the intuitive mindset in MBTI?
    Paradigm shifts I would say. I have encountered my fair share of evolution believers who exclaimed evolution as "extremely obvious" and "common sense". I think they merely needed someone to show them that the natural selection theory is reasonable and just as "intuitive" as the intelligent design model. Even if there is no final proof for the theory of natural selection its premises are observable: some people survive diseases or injuries due to their physical composition whilst others wouldn't, others are allowed to advance and develop through possessing a greater level of "talent" compared to others and some people are born into relative comfort whilst others are born into poverty and have to struggle to survive merely because of the environmental conditions of where they exist.

    My personal view is that intelligent design isn't intuitive. But I'm going to avoid getting into too much detail about that.

  10. #160
    Infinite Bubble
    Guest

    Default

    The latter's name; it's ironic really. The actuality is haphazard. Ineffecient. Incompetent, even.

    Ah, c'est un artiste! They say.
    God has divine taste - artistic merit!

    No, no, it's just that natural selection is the superior explanation. Or perhaps god is a comedian.

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Creationism
    By Frosty in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 04-18-2015, 03:44 PM
  2. Intelligent Design
    By Little_Sticks in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 01:52 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Worth vs. Intelligence
    By Jonny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 07:20 AM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO