Is Super-Heroism Possible?

[atreestump]

sun down I suggest you stay out of this I'll deal with you later

Listen here madam adhesive. I can sit back and tell you that I knew what you were going to write down too. piece of cake no body can prove me wrong either because all I'd have to do is lie and say that I knew you'd say that I am dumb as a brick blah blah blah

That isn't how I think the french are that is proven fact of how the french act. If the world was a todum poll you'd be at the bottom along with pier and all your other friends. so back down before you fall down.

I just need to know one thing How in the hell is the spelling of gluon quantum physics? now yes gluons are responsible for binding together neutrons and protons blah blah but really now spelling it and knowing what it is, is completely different.

You talk a big game for a frenchy I hand it to yuh but srsly All you are doing is showing off your big mouth because you are only proving my point which is if someone can do it they will. and you sure do try don't-cha?

Sundown yes you are right about that no I or you or even frenchy here would probably take out a five year old with a 20 in his pocket just for the money but there is people who will and have done just that. No I wouldn't do that not for 20$ not for 100$. But no one can say that if they had the ability to freeze anything just by blowing on it they wouldn't use that ability to freeze a guy that may have purposely rearended you at a traffic light. that is what I am talking about.

Gluon you are a thorn in my side. that is all you make no point. you just go on and on and on about the same stuff and it is so far off topic you can't even see the topic again so get out of your own butt and stay with it or don't reply again! No it isn't because I am intimidated by you And you can look up intimidate later. you just may need to. it's because I am sick and tired of reading your damn posts they are the same repetative crap.

 

[atreestump]

I wouldn't rob a bank, and I'm neither a liar nor "nieve". I'm just a decent person who wouldn't want to ruin the futures of every person whose life savings I'd be taking. Unlike you, I actually think about how my actions impact others and choose not to do certain things I view as wrong. Yeah, I said "choose". There's that whole free will thing that you apparently forgot about.

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that just because a person can do something, they inevitably will. Say I saw a little kid with a $20 bill sticking out of his back pocket. Now, I could knock him out cold and take the money. It'd be easy. He's small, I'm big. Therefore, I have a huge "power" over him. But I wouldn't do that because that's just an awful thing to do. Now, according to your argument, you would beat up this kid and take his money simply because you could? And you'd have no choice in the manner?

Now sundown about what you were taking about Yeah i guess that does make sense and what I have previously posted may make you say something like that so No in that sense I was wrong. morals would interviene and stop someone from doing something like that in most senses but assuming you were homeless and you hadn't had a thing to eat in three weeks and that same kid came by holding that same twenty dollar bill in his pocket Then yeah I would be driven by hunger and take it now maybe not in such a violent way but yeah I would take it and I am sure that everyone else in this message board would do the same thing. Just to get some food in there stomach. It's called survival of the fitest.
I was refering to something completely different when I said what I said the example that you refered to wasn't what I was talking about. But yes You are right morals and "free will" would interviene in that case. But lets say that you served a king and threw a chain of events you gain the ability to over throw him would you do it?

 

[Sun_Down]

You forgot that you'll rape him.

Yeah, I kinda skipped over the posts where "rapeing" was the hot topic of discussiom.

 

[Sun_Down]

Now sundown about what you were taking about Yeah i guess that does make sense and what I have previously posted may make you say something like that so No in that sense I was wrong. morals would interviene and stop someone from doing something like that in most senses but assuming you were homeless and you hadn't had a thing to eat in three weeks and that same kid came by holding that same twenty dollar bill in his pocket Then yeah I would be driven by hunger and take it now maybe not in such a violent way but yeah I would take it and I am sure that everyone else in this message board would do the same thing. Just to get some food in there stomach. It's called survival of the fitest.
I was refering to something completely different when I said what I said the example that you refered to wasn't what I was talking about. But yes You are right morals and "free will" would interviene in that case. But lets say that you served a king and threw a chain of events you gain the ability to over throw him would you do it?

But still, even if I was starving, I wouldn't rob a kid. I would seriously consider robbing an adult, but at that point, we're on a level playing field in terms of "power" so the whole super-hero thing goes out the window anyway.

But lets say that you served a king and threw a chain of events you gain the ability to over throw him would you do it?

That's a very vague question. If the king is unjust and harming his people, then yes, I'd do what I could do have justice served and see a new regime put in place. If he's fair and me and my family have a good life, then I probably wouldn't attempt to overthrow him just for the sake of power. It's really more a question of practicality (How am I gonna do it?) and consequence (Will I get away with it? Or get overthrown myself?)

I do understand your point that power can lead to corruption, but it doesn't necessarily lead there.

But no one can say that if they had the ability to freeze anything just by blowing on it they wouldn't use that ability to freeze a guy that may have purposely rearended you at a traffic light. that is what I am talking about.

And yes, I can say that I wouldn't do that, because I'm not insane.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

sun down I suggest you stay out of this I'll deal with you later

Listen here madam adhesive. I can sit back and tell you that I knew what you were going to write down too. piece of cake no body can prove me wrong either because all I'd have to do is lie and say that I knew you'd say that I am dumb as a brick blah blah blah

That isn't how I think the french are that is proven fact of how the french act. If the world was a todum poll you'd be at the bottom along with pier and all your other friends. so back down before you fall down.

I just need to know one thing How in the hell is the spelling of gluon quantum physics? now yes gluons are responsible for binding together neutrons and protons blah blah but really now spelling it and knowing what it is, is completely different.

You talk a big game for a frenchy I hand it to yuh but srsly All you are doing is showing off your big mouth because you are only proving my point which is if someone can do it they will. and you sure do try don't-cha?

Sundown yes you are right about that no I or you or even frenchy here would probably take out a five year old with a 20 in his pocket just for the money but there is people who will and have done just that. No I wouldn't do that not for 20$ not for 100$. But no one can say that if they had the ability to freeze anything just by blowing on it they wouldn't use that ability to freeze a guy that may have purposely rearended you at a traffic light. that is what I am talking about.

Gluon you are a thorn in my side. that is all you make no point. you just go on and on and on about the same stuff and it is so far off topic you can't even see the topic again so get out of your own butt and stay with it or don't reply again! No it isn't because I am intimidated by you And you can look up intimidate later. you just may need to. it's because I am sick and tired of reading your damn posts they are the same repetative crap.

Awww! Blank insults is all you got? I really thought I'd drag more entertainment out of the husk that is your argument. Apparently, I gave you more credit than your worth.

So let me start from the top, shall I?

I knew what you were going to write down, it's blatantly obvious. You're a "strike and strike back like an idiot" poster.

You definitely have no clue about us French, because your statements say it all for you. Unless you have this little thing we like to call...I don't know...evidence?

Someone used Wikipedia for gluons!!

And no, I'm not proving your point, though you ARE proving mine. Do I have a big mouth? Sometimes. Difference is, I definitely have the substance to back it up. Not just these blank little threats, and when I run out, blank little insults. That's best left to posters like X and yourself. Though X has shown better posting quality before.

Oh, the point was was that you're not intelligent, and you're not observational, and really, you shouldn't be rated to even drive a car at this rate.

And once again, with the freezing breath, maybe you're of corrupt character to do it, Lord knows you only have the intelligence of a low level thug. But some of us are actually (believe it or not) above that. Which is really basic human sciences, to tell the truth. But then again, the American public education system is ranked amongst the lowest in the entire developed world.

As for a thorn in your side? Of course. Truth sucks, especially when you have none. Which is the case with us. You have only little biased petty things that only a little person of dim thoughts can say, and I am actually right. The truth is, you're just a watered down version of me. You say similar things like "stay on task" when you can't provide anything for your own. And see, I never joined your little argument with them, you're assuming I am (which is derailment of the argument on YOUR part little mister). Reptetitive? Hmm... Interesting, coming from you. As your entire posts in this entire thread were saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over (and Lord can I go on) with the same exact thing. When Question and Don blocked you (with examples), you just went on to (super out of contextually) use sports stars as examples (and didn't even follow up on that correctly *Applaud*).

So here it is. You can't stay on topic. And you can't even argue with me. You're not even CLOSE to my league, I really don't know why you try.

What I'm sick and tired of is self convinced idiots who've "lived the hard life" like some little emo girl and come here to tell us that they have a view of the world they couldn't possibly have. I've lived in seven different countries, that ALONE qualifies me over you. While I'm absolutely sure now that you're the product of incestual love, I urge you to stop, because all you did was answer the call with a cry. If you really have nothing to add, then don't bother me. People like myself truly have better things to do than tend to children, even on a forum.

Oh, and you never actually pointed out where I copied things. You can't go dodging things now. That would be very "French".

You have just been Gluowned twice.

 

[atreestump]

sundown I like you. lol you stay on topic I think I am going to ignore that french chick she doesn't.

Now apparently you have never been desperate, or gone an extended amount of time without food after a week you are a weak as a 12 year old so the playing feild would be level. Now there are people who have been shot for rearending someone so I am sure they'd use ice breathe on that person if they had that ability

now what if the king was kind to some and not to others. lets say that your families life wasn't very good but yours was then what?

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Awweh! The last deperate throes of the weak. Ignorance. How very American.

 

[atreestump]

Yeah Gluon I didn't even read your last post it was long and probably something along the lines of Blah blah blah don't mess with France. if you don't start making relevent points about the topic of whether or not Super-heroism is possible or not then jsut stay out of it

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Awweh! The incestual offspring deigned to honour this mademoiselle with yet another "American style" retort! I'm so honoured! No, I think I'll stay.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Yes, staying will be nice. I do so hope for entertainment. Dance, jester, dance.

 

[atreestump]

well fine if you are going to annoy the hell out of me than do it by saying something meaningful not just anything that you can squeeze out of you snail eating mind Please get on topic

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

You actually annoy others.

"Pot, meet kettle."

"Geez, you're black?!"

And racist comments like that only really make you look dumb.

 

[The Question]

You know me, whether I like someone or don't, I don't enjoy reading this crap that's continuing here for no reason.

And arguing is fun. (But being from France, I have a whole different view on it.)

Anyway, like I said, read Promethia. Wether you agree with it or no, it explains my points in our little debates far better than I do.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

I've read some of Promethea. And I hear it's pretty good. Do I think it absolutely violates the current observable laws of physics? Not all of it. There's some problems back and forth. But that's here nor there, really. As a physicist, I can't totally say you're wrong, as we can't actually test what would happen if it were possible to. All I can say is, with our current level of understanding, it's an impossible feat to undergo, and would threaten the very universe around us.

 

[The Question]

I've read some of Promethea. And I hear it's pretty good. Do I think it absolutely violates the current observable laws of physics? Not all of it. There's some problems back and forth. But that's here nor there, really. As a physicist, I can't totally say you're wrong, as we can't actually test what would happen if it were possible to. All I can say is, with our current level of understanding, it's an impossible feat to undergo, and would threaten the very universe around us.

Well, I'd suggest reading a bit more of Promethia. Mainly because it's a damn good read in it's own right. And even if you don't agree with it's points, it's pretty facinating. And like I said, it explains my points better than I do.

Also, I would agree that testing mysticism scientifically is a problem, merely because science and mysticism are two completely different ways of aproaching things. One aspect of some mystical philosophies, for example, is that the simple act of veiwing an event can effect it's outcome, since reality is subjective in nature. Wether that's true or not, everyone would agree that objectively testing wether or not something is subjective in nature is highly problamatic.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

There was a philosopher that held that train of thought. And damned that I can't remember his name. The idea went that things don't exist until we look at them, and it's built up of our perception of it, but it's set in stone afterward, and testable by science. And Heisenberg said that we cannot predict things simply BY looking at them. But the only problem was, with the first one, is our atmosphere would dissapear (and that would suck), and the second one basically stated that only particles change around due to photon realignment for the most part.

I mean, I can see where you're coming from, but if it were two different approaches altogether, it would really be a combatant of science as we understand it now, since it would definitely go about violating quite a few rules (such as excess energy and such).

Though you and I have come to the agreement that science will not remain as it is forever, and that new forms of it will take on as it has in the past. So all we can really do is study, and wait.

 

[The Question]

There was a philosopher that held that train of thought. And damned that I can't remember his name. The idea went that things don't exist until we look at them, and it's built up of our perception of it, but it's set in stone afterward, and testable by science. And Heisenberg said that we cannot predict things simply BY looking at them. But the only problem was, with the first one, is our atmosphere would dissapear (and that would suck), and the second one basically stated that only particles change around due to photon realignment for the most part.

Lots of people have held that theory. Big part of metaphysics (which, in many ways, has influenced both mysticism and quantum physics, and could be seen as a middle ground between the two, even though it is entirely specualtive and theoretical in nature).

I mean, I can see where you're coming from, but if it were two different approaches altogether, it would really be a combatant of science as we understand it now, since it would definitely go about violating quite a few rules (such as excess energy and such).

I'm not so sure violating the laws of physics is the best way to describe practical mysticism. I'd think most mystics would see it as finding the loopholes. And, if you do buy the theory that reality is subjective/maliable in nature, and can be effected by point of veiw/willpower, then there definately are loopholes. Of course, if you don't buy that theory, well, then you don't. But that's not really the point.

Though you and I have come to the agreement that science will not remain as it is forever, and that new forms of it will take on as it has in the past. So all we can really do is study, and wait.

Naturally. In Promethia, for example, it's suggested that mysticism was a general and widely accepted practice, but was replaced by scientific reason and skepticism with the advent of the rennesance, which in many ways was necessairy to pull us out of the dark ages. However, Moore also argues that since the renesance, we've often tried and failed to reconsile mysticism and scientific thinking, and we probably ought to.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Lots of people have held that theory. Big part of metaphysics (which, in many ways, has influenced both mysticism and quantum physics, and could be seen as a middle ground between the two, even though it is entirely specualtive and theoretical in nature).

While I agree several ideas that sprung from metaphysics have probably influenced some quantum physics, I wouldn't say to the higher degree. I guess middleground would work.

I'm not so sure violating the laws of physics is the best way to describe practical mysticism. I'd think most mystics would see it as finding the loopholes. And, if you do buy the theory that reality is subjective/maliable in nature, and can be effected by point of veiw/willpower, then there definately are loopholes. Of course, if you don't buy that theory, well, then you don't. But that's not really the point.

Well, you're kind of judging the universe by how we judge ourselves. From what we understand of the universe, it's an absolute. Set in stone, so to speak. It's rules are unbreakable. "Warp" space would be the closest thing to a loophole, but it woudln't really be considered mysticism, as it definitely follows the idea of heavy gravity and billions of suns of energy to commit to the task.



But if perception could also bend reality and space, not only would it be a loophole, it would be a full out breaking of how the observable universe works. But that's only if it works, and that's only with the universe we're capable of readily observing.

Naturally. In Promethia, for example, it's suggested that mysticism was a general and widely accepted practice, but was replaced by scientific reason and skepticism with the advent of the rennesance, which in many ways was necessairy to pull us out of the dark ages. However, Moore also argues that since the renesance, we've often tried and failed to reconsile mysticism and scientific thinking, and we probably ought to.

I've heard that too, and to some point I agree. (Though you get EVERYBODY taking this wrong, and saying it's letting God back into science, which is totally not what we're talking about. Perfect example: Creationism vs. Evolution). We should at least allow the creativity that mysticism allows into science so we can broaden our horizons. Actually begin to observe how the energy coming off of our bodies actually effects the environment to the smallest detail, instead of flat out assuming it's not enough to do anything. But the only problem is, we can't measure reality, and it would be beyond our understanding. (I think most scientists place reality as a basis of all dimensions, and thus, it's outside of perception. Space, time, and reality would be wholly different things.)

 

[Elijya]

personally I could care less people might find offensive if you think I am talking about rapeing someone then you are just as messed up as you think I am. I tried to avoid getting grotesque as much as possible Enriquespy but some people had to assume that I was talking about rape. But even so there is a path that non of these Dudley Do-Rights seem to be able to see. I don't care who you are what part of town you came from if you were faced with the opportunity to rob a bank and get off scot free there is no way in hell anyone would pass it up. I'm sorry it is human nature and if you say you wouldn't do it you are either a liar or insanely nieve.

Wow, so not being a completely immoral scum-bag theif makes you a Dudley Do-Right? Ever occur to you that some people don't steal from other people not because they're afraid of getting caught but -dun dun dun- it's the wrong thing to do?

I suggest you go to Bible-Camp

I'm telling you that, and I'm not even christian

 

[Elijya]

OIC I understand the English language very well. You need help understanding a thing or two like Not contridicting yourself. If you opened this thread to get peoples opinions then that is what you are going to get. an opinion can't be wrong that is why it's an opinion.

if you're of the opinion that the Earth is flat... you're wrong

so, yes, opinions can be wrong

 

[The Question]

Well, you're kind of judging the universe by how we judge ourselves. From what we understand of the universe, it's an absolute. Set in stone, so to speak. It's rules are unbreakable. "Warp" space would be the closest thing to a loophole, but it woudln't really be considered mysticism, as it definitely follows the idea of heavy gravity and billions of suns of energy to commit to the task.

I understand where you're coming from. I was simply saying if you went with the idea that reality is effected by will/perception, then there aare loopholes. Not everyone goes with that.

But if perception could also bend reality and space, not only would it be a loophole, it would be a full out breaking of how the observable universe works. But that's only if it works, and that's only with the universe we're capable of readily observing.

I wouldn't see it as a "breaking." It doesn't contradict what we already know. It simply would require us to reasess and adjust what we already know.

I've heard that too, and to some point I agree. (Though you get EVERYBODY taking this wrong, and saying it's letting God back into science, which is totally not what we're talking about. Perfect example: Creationism vs. Evolution). We should at least allow the creativity that mysticism allows into science so we can broaden our horizons. Actually begin to observe how the energy coming off of our bodies actually effects the environment to the smallest detail, instead of flat out assuming it's not enough to do anything. But the only problem is, we can't measure reality, and it would be beyond our understanding. (I think most scientists place reality as a basis of all dimensions, and thus, it's outside of perception. Space, time, and reality would be wholly different things.)

Of course. Way I see it, scientic/rational thinking and mystical/irrational thinking each have their places. When it comes to law and order, the rational way of looking at things is more effective. When dealing with people on an individual basis, however, it requires an irrational aproach. It also depends on who you are. Take you and me for example. We're both inteligent people. However, because of my tendancy for creative thinking, going by gut feelings, interest in the supernatural, and some experiences that suggest, to me, that the universe and reality can be effected to at least some degree by the human will (including a little dabbling in magic on my part) leads me to the irrational/mystical aproach to things. You, on the otherhand, take a scientific/rational aproach because that's what suits you. Neither of us, in my opinion, are wrong. We have two different, equally valid ways of aproaching things that work for us. And of course, I'm certainly capable of using rational/skeptical thinking when the situation warrants, and I'm sure that you don't entirely rule out irrationality/spirituality either.

 

[The Question]

Now, to change the topic slightly, in keeping with the point of the conversation:


An interesting section of the question as to wether superheroism is possible is, naturally, superhumans. There have been claims of superhuman feats, even seemingly supported claims, in the past, and unless I'm merely exadgerang, the number of claims that seem to have some ground are growing.

For example, I remember a poster on the Hype, some time ago, posted a story about a friend of his who possessed unique mental abilities. His friend was highly inteligent, could "read" people, being able to figure out what they were doing, what they were about to do, and what they were like just by glancing at them, and claimed that he could see spirits from time to time, even saying that at one point that he confronted an entity he believed to be the Grim Reaper, which he "ordered" to leave his family alone. Now, I can't recall who posted this or what thread it was on, but it, along with other such claims, certainly pertains to the topic at hand.


Also, if it will help anyone remember the example I'm talking about, I do recall that the poster mentioned some religious cult having a fascination with his friend, even stalking the family when his friend was a small child.

 

[Elijya]

Me and a friend have both experienced some precognitive dreams

 

[The Question]

Me and a friend have both experienced some precognitive dreams

As have I, though mine are usually fairly lame and insignifigant, as they only ever pertain to things in my imediate future, and my imediate future tends to be boring. Course, I suppose that's a bit of a good thing when you think about it.

 

[Elijya]

oh, it's always lame and insignificant, and you don't realize you dreamed it until it happens, weeks or months later