Recent posts by TuJe on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

Why is that the children like more the food their mothers ate when they were expecting them? I think this question can provide at least a partial answer to OP’s question… well at least partial

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the most fundamental science?

I think the subject would be more interesting if the topic was “What is the most fundamental (category of) knowledge?” ;P

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Extra-terrestrial disclosure

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thijser:

[…] What would alliens possibly get from coming here and then sneaking about rather then either completly harvesting all avaible resources or seeking communication with as many of us a passble to discover as much research as possible?

Exactly.
I asked that question some time back….and, got no response.

If you read the “Allies of Humanity” document greg posted earlier, it pretty much covers it all. It even gives a broad picture of what’s happening in the space around us. The subject itself is too broad and complicated for anyone to post a tl;dr version of it really. You should read it and form your opinion.

I feel this subject is too high on the scale of “impact to human-kind” that it could go without a thorough inspection of available materials, so I urge you to seek the information and form your opinion based on it. I will do it too.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

If I may ask, what are values of science? Do you mean scientific method? Can you give some examples?

I would say the value of repetition of sensory data removed from bias? Empiricism? It seems kind of, meh. But I feel unites mankind into a progressive, universal body. It provides the field for the expansion of human power. The scientific method is inclusive and empowering, which I feel are pretty ennobling virtues. Further, that expansion of power has led to all sorts of pleasantries and pleasures, and I find many who enjoy the harvest are not present when it is sown.

Hmm… I think it can be all that, but not necessarily. I think we’re talking about opinions now.

unites mankind into a progressive, universal body

Depends on how the discoveries are used. See war technology, I can’t see that as uniting mankind.

It provides the field for the expansion of human power.

Yes, I agree, it increases the ways we can shape our environment and ourselves.

The scientific method is inclusive and empowering, which I feel are pretty ennobling virtues.

Inclusive in a way, yes. The concept is designed to take into account everything measurable (by this definition, psychology barely passes, but I think it’s science too. It just depends how you define “measurable”). Empowering… in some ways, yes. It certainly expands the mind and can be considered empowering that way.


No, I don’t definitely want anyone else’s happiness to be sacrificed before mine. On the contrary, I feel helping people to reach happiness creates happiness to me as well.

I get that, and I think is quite honest. Most people get kind of squirmy about it. But looking outside of personal interactions, I see the scientific method as the most powerful tool in achieving human happiness, and that any disregard or attack on it damaging to the expansion of human happiness. So although a personal credo may be personally pleasurable, I feel it is a crime against the best aspects of the human race? Which seems a little hyperbolic, and I’m not normally one for obligations. But, perhaps something to be considered?

I, for my part, see scientific method as the most powerful tool in achieving maximum human pleasure and convenience. Pleasure ≠ Happiness, I think happiness is much deeper feeling than pleasure and has much more dimensions too. But I’m not sure if the comparison is even valid because I wouldn’t count pleasure as an emotion, which happines certainly is. So I think there is a categorical difference between the two.

I also see scientific method as a most powerful tool in limiting and removing any physical suffering, and I definitely respect science because of that. But I see why you feel my credo (learn a new word every day, thanks) the way you feel it. I have so far only explained my belief system in relevance to why I believe in God (and not use scientific method instead in that case). I did not in any point mean that scientific method should be scrapped and tossed away in the corner (as many of you seem to think). Instead it should be valued dependent of the goal you reach, and I feel it doesn’t do well in the goal of reaching happiness, and my religious beliefs have proved to be far more efficient to me for reaching that goal. Hence scientific method being ‘irrelevant’ to me in that case only (usefulness of scientific method should be however valued in case by case basis). You should also note that I did not at any point say my religious beliefs dictated the ways I feel happiness should be achieved but instead those are formed by the philosophical aspects of my belief-system I have been continuously explaining here. I hoped this helped you to see better where I stand.

EDIT: Added the term ‘religious’ where they belonged.

@BSG:

I think many things I wrote above are also relevant to what you posted. I don’t know what you mean by the lack of material truth to my claims or values, or maybe I also answered that above?

About your second paragraph:

I’m not disputing their usefulness to you, I’m disputing their tangibility and necessity.

Yes, they may not be necessary to all, but to some they may be. I never said they are necessary to achieving happiness, but I feel that my religious beliefs are absolutely the most efficient option available
for me to achieve happiness. (PS: I don’t want this discussion to delve in my religious beliefs, I have long ago decided that I will not discuss them in public media).

I do not think that requires standardizing a belief system and passing it around to everyone with the threat of mortal death or abandonment by the great father figure as punishment. That just isn’t necessary to develop moral or happy thinking.

Yes, I think no one should pass around religion threatening with any negative of punisment and/or mortal death. It’s not necessary. Instead being an example of good and loveful acting often evokes similar responses from others around you in time, and I think that is absolutely necessary.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Granted, and quite acute. Although that is part of why it irks me when people don’t locate the values of science as fundamental to some of their other values, or things they value. Not to say that is particular of you Tuje.

If I may ask, what are values of science? Do you mean scientific method? Can you give some examples?


But take happiness, a subjective feeling. It is, in itself, always ultimately more valuable than a single fact of science: happiness is both dependent on a subject, but also it’s own intended destination. It is perfect in itself, it doesn’t have a value dependent of it’s use, it has a value in itself. It is not a mere tool, it’s whole in it’s entirety.

Disagree with that. I feel like you are suggesting [happiness?] is inherently valuable, just because? I grant that it is a root value of many others, as you suggest – and that most other values are just abstractions of the will to happiness. But, there are instances where happiness is valued other mandates. Or those who specifically alienate happiness, for their reasons.

Although as a person choice, I would grant such a notion fair enough.

Yes, in my opinion feelings are the common denominators of our value-system; I think our whole system of placing values to world we see & feel with our senses are based on feelings.

And about other instances which place value on happiness itself, for example. I think it’s horrible being grown up in a culture that tries suppress all and any feelings of happiness or any other feeling(s) for whatever reason. I think that every feeling is inherently valuable and every one of them tells a different story about you as a person. If one or more of those feelings are suppressed by outside influence, I feel they have been taken some of the core elements of self-insight away from them and twisted their “inherent feedback system” to be self-harming in one or more ways.

Also your sacrifice of things integral to so much of the universal happiness for your own personal happiness is… unsettling? It seems, harmless as a person credo, but truly monstrous in it’s conceit and en masse implications.

No, I don’t definitely want anyone else’s happiness to be sacrificed before mine. On the contrary, I feel helping people to reach happiness creates happiness to me as well. One thing I have noticed in my life is that happiness comes in numbers and suffering walks with you alone. What I mean with is that being alone in your suffering makes it very likely to stay with you and a great deal of happiness is created by social interaction, which (almost?) always creates happiness to at least two persons.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Oh, I just saw HolyLasagna quoting a text and it didn’t cross my mind to search for who even wrote the quoted text. I should’ve searched for original context.

By the way, your quotes are broken, they show the wrong names.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

No because in context it’s criticizing the idea that religions themselves cause wars. Way to not read and immediately jump to conclusions.

Oh, you are correct. Thank you for pointing that out.

… Though no concept causes war in itself. The intended use of some religions may be to cause war, but they still need someone else to start it… No reason to hate all religions if only few of them actually does advocate for war (for example some interpretation of islam seem to advocate for war, a “holy war” concept twisted to suit the needs of various empires and ideological groups).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

I don’t want to die, so I’d rather believe that I never will.”

I really don’t know how to reply to that.

I’m not sure I know how to reply to that section either.

Just to make it clear, I didn’t even indirectly mention I believe in this. He jumped to conclusions. I think denying you die can even be very unhealthy and as so detrimental to reaching happiness. Many matters in live need coping with, and denying rarely helps anything. I think admitting moves you forward the most.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

I don’t think that’s very healthy. And yeah, that’s exactly what you’re saying. “I would rather be happy than logically consistent

Do you find inconsistensiens in my logic? If you find them, point them and I will answer you.

or aware of things that do not make me happy.”

I didn’t say I ignore everything unpleasant, I was talking strictly about concepts (and I don’t even ignore the concepts, I admit each of them has an end use and are useful in that regard, it’s just that they are relevant only when you reach for goals they provide the tools for). What you see through your eyes is real, and every feeling you experience should always be taken thankfully and seriously, because behind them is always reason(s) why they manifested to you in the first place. They tell a lot about you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

I didn’t say ignorance is bliss, I only said some factual knowledge is irrelevant concerning my happiness (which happens to be my goal in life). Also, it’s up to an individual to believe in afterlife; for each to their own. To me it’s irrelevant.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

Believing I am rich helps too, it doesn’t make it true.

True, but denying your experiences don’t make them not true to you either. They don’t even necessarily imply anything outside from the experiences themselves. Who is to say that God experienced is somehow less valuable than scientific stance that dictates that for a something to exist it should manifest itself in X, Y or Z way only, especially if said experience helped you in your life and raised your overall level of happiness? Science doesn’t dictate how I should value, but it helps to locate facts that, in themselves, hold no value at all. They are to be used in dependency of their intended use: their value are relative to the subject who uses them. They are like tools, helping you to reach destinations created by the minds who use them. But take happiness, a subjective feeling. It is, in itself, always ultimately more valuable than a single fact of science: happiness is both dependent on a subject, but also it’s own intended destination. It is perfect in itself, it doesn’t have a value dependent of it’s use, it has a value in itself. It is not a mere tool, it’s whole in it’s entirety.

So this has led me to value happiness above all else due to it’s nature, and anything that causes me happiness will also be valued respectively (—ultimately my goal is to experience happiness for simply existing, because who does dictate that you can’t be happy due to X, Y, Z?). Take experiencing God. If I were to apply scientific method to it, I would also have to stop believing in God. But that’s not all, I would also lose every positive feeling associated with it, and since happiness is my main objective, scientific method in this case becomes irrelevant. This doesn’t mean I think scientific method is false, I think it’s efficient in what it was designed for. But since it wasn’t designed for reaching happiness, most of achievements reached by it are mostly irrelevant to me. It’s a tool designed for certain objective, like many other concepts are.

You can live in your imagination, but I really don’t see your imagination creating computational machines, or inventing the combustion engine based on prayers.

Oh, but imagination does create computational machines, or how would they be created without a mind as an operator? All concepts are created and designed by imagination, scientific method in a way that it corresponds with only quantifiable and predictable elements of the world we experience. Also, praying isn’t even supposed to create combustions engine, isn’t that a job for a well-motivated scientists to use the facts discovered by scientific method and then apply them to practice? They also have to imagine what they are creating from the select materials and aforementioned facts before they even begin to create.

None of this is evidence or proof of anything but your propensity to believe in ancient texts without challenging yourself or them with the basic rules of logic and consistency.

See my my first response. “Proof” is subject to scientific method. Also, I didn’t say I believed in ancient texts, at least at face value. I believe them if: I judge them to raise my knowledge on to how to achieve happiness, and interpret it in a way it makes the most sense concerning that goal. If that didn’t help me reach my goal, I won’t believe it and deem it as irrelevant. Didn’t say I believe it though. I do think nothing should be believed in only at face value.

Evoking the uncertainty of truth doesn’t somehow validate your made up stuff.

I didn’t ever evoke that as far as I know.

EDIT:

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood: He said actually practically useful. Being a follower of sports club “insert name here” has assisted people in carrying on in their lives (in times of crises as well as everyday live), or in reaching greater level of happiness in their lives, for example.
There are thousands more examples of things that are not practically useful making people happy or helping them cope. For another example insert any illegal mood-enhancing drug instead of sports club.

What is practical to one might not be to another, so you saying it isn’t practical doesn’t mean it isn’t. I think one of the definitions of practical from Merriam-Webster’s best depicts is here: "of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal. That doesn’t imply practical means the same thing for everyone. And following an ideal(s) of something or a sports club or etc. doesn’t make the action of you following it only a “theory”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

So, I should have my gun “at the ready” when I pass by a church?

[…]

Am I the first one that finds this post very disturbing?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

Originally posted by TheBSG:
Damn, if only you had knowledge related to something substantial and actually practically useful that could help people

Claim that religion doesn’t personally help anyone can be disproved by my personal experience alone, except if you define “help” differently than I do. To me, help is, among other things, everything that assists people carrying on in their lives (in times of crises as well as everyday live), or in reaching greater level of happiness in their lives, for example.

and not a self serving adherence to invisible and inconsistent morality characters

This is possibly derived from your perspective or from someone else’s take on the Bible. Do you admit that, at face value, many things might seem inconsistent?

who’s affect on the world is immeasurable, undetectable, and indifferent from a world that doesn’t require their existence.

Whose world? It’s like you say that for anything to be meaningful or helpful at all, it should manifest itself for everyone to see and measure… speak for yourself then. You place your own meanings and values to reality you live in. You experience many things that are immeasurable, undetectable and indifferent to your peers, and maybe even the world, and yet they exist, to you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

“Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.”

… No, I don’t wholly agree with that. I can admire someone and not ignore their less desirable deeds (/qualities). I can also admire individual deeds without admiring the person themselves.

But I could admire someone so much that I’d ignore all the bad things about them, true…But isn’t that idolizing them? Where’s the difference?

Also, the quote implies that admiration will lead to ignorance, so, to me it’s making the claim that if you admire someone a bit, the level of your admiration will grow to the extent that you will start ignoring their other non-admirable qualities, or that there’s no other way of admiring something/someone than to be ignorant of some other qualities in them (or others? In that case, does it mean that after knowing everything, you can’t admire anything/anyone? I disagree with this too, because I think admiring someone/something and not knowing things that are irrelevant considering the object of admiration is not ignorant admiration.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

“The law doesn’t protect people. People protect the law.”

I partially agree with this. IMO laws exist to protect people, but people must ‘enforce’, “protect” the law, in order for law to actually protect people.

So, people protect the law to protect the people.

Actually, I agree with it, law doesn’t protect people by itself… If it’s meant to be taken that way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Taxation of Time-banking

Well I really wouldn’t want the Finnish highway maintenance department to use the current time-banking system as-is. I would much rather see the current time-banking model to be used only locally, as is the case right now. For time-banking to work large-scale, I think the time-banking system should be modified, and the end result would be practically near-indistinquishable to current monetary system. In the process all (or nearly all) arguments provided by time bank supporters in favour of time-banking (against the current system) would also be moot.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Taxation of Time-banking

Well, if someone is really selling bitumen for time, the two parties would just negotiate how much time it’s worth, and that amount of time would be taken from the buyer’s time bank account to the seller’s. Then the bitumen seller could use the time he acquired to any service(s) and/or materials avalailable through time bank.

The only problem would be in actually paying for that huge amount of bitumen. It is in my understanding that all time banks do allow for debt, but most or all banks (at least in Finland) do seem to have a debt limit of some kind, so that kind of debt isn’t realistically possible. The only possibility would be to slowly acquire that amount of time.

Time banks aren’t really structured for large-scale offers (as is evident by the current low debt limits in time banks), so such high-volume trades aren’t realistically possible in current time bank system.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Back-up savings

The location of you kongregate saves is this in Windows:

C:\Users\[your username]\AppData\Roaming\Macromedia\Flash Player\#SharedObjects\E2F7CNSR\assets.kongregate.com

Save the .sol files there to any external drive, and when you want to use them, paste them to same location they were taken from (see above).

And this really is the wrong type of forum to ask these kind of questions. Next time, try a page vika provided a link for.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Taxation of Time-banking

At least here in Finland, it is planned that the tax would be paid with money. Or I misundestood you. Also, some time banks do permit exhanging/renting items for time, but I’m not sure all time banks allow it. But when it is allowed, the whole “currency” of time isn’t that much different from our current currencies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Taxation of Time-banking

Originally posted by beauval:

Hmm… yes, I concur that time-banking will never have a huge impact on any country’s economy. It is as you said, the services provided through it aren’t usually highly specialized. People with special skills benefit more from subscribing to money industry, and that is because time-banking seems very communistic in it’s concept: 1 hour of any service equals 1 hour of any service. At least that’s the rule of many time banks in Finland.

And that’s the weakness. When I was involved in a scheme I repaired computers and the occasional television, and banked quite a lot of credits. I spent some on piano lessons and cakes, but when the scheme folded, I still had unspent credits. There just wasn’t much on offer that I wanted – plenty of dog walkers, garden weeders and clerical assistants, but all the people with real skills were out in the real world earning real money.

I guess then time banking works better the more people are unemployed? I would guess that currently there are many experts with highly specialized skills in Greece and Spain waiting for employment -and that offers time banks a valuable opportunity. In the time of (economical) crises I could see it definitely working better.

I just don’t see that happening. Ever. Its all strictly small scale. A time bank is never going to be able to help if you want to build a skyscraper or a bridge, or develop a new aircraft. It has no way of producing either the money or the specialised skills that such a project requires.

Yes. Many capitalistic concepts don’t apply in time-banking. No licenses or provisions, no stocks or interests. Communistic in this way too; only work matters. I can see it restricting growth and ambition.


Also, just recently I read about opinion of a time-bank opposer: He said time-banking is only implemented for high-income people to avoid taxes, and is only a lite-version of our current currency. He also said that it’s very annoying to always (re)value your work in case by case basis, and that our current currency solves that problem thoroughly. While I argee on the last points, but I’m not so sure about the first.
EDIT: I’m also not so sure if time-banking should even be taxed, but then, could some people really exploit from it not being taxed to get massive benefits?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Taxation of Time-banking

@beauval
I tried to find figures about popularity of time-banking in Finland but found none. I did find that Finnish Tax Administration referred the economical impact of time-banking being “marginal compared to total services traded in money industry” in their documentary released 4th of June this year. This is no surprise. They did however note that the interest in time-banking in Finland has been rising since it was founded (here) in 2009.

It seems they are planning to tax only the services you receive, not the work you do for someone else.

But I don’t want to focus only on time-banking in Finland on this topic, I think the very concept of taxing a non-monetary service has broader implications. Basically, Time-banking as a concept can be considered threatening to current (global) financial model. Time-bankers in general criticise the current model this way:

  • Money is debt
    In our modern systems of currency (most notably € & $), the money in circulation is always put in the circulation by private merchant banks1. For example, in euro-system only the coins are put in circulation by the government. Everything else is put in to circulation for exhange of promissory notes, from which the interest must be paid to banks which granted the loans. So the banks collect the interest independent of the way the money is used. What follows from this is that whoever uses that currency must always pay for their use of their own money to a third party in a form of interest. Time-banks avoid this problem.
  • Inflation
    While time-banking is naturally subject to economic cycles in micro- and macroeconomies, and that may effect the appreciation of certain services, but ultimately the value of service is always determined in a contract between a buyer and a seller. Therefore the value of a service is always valued case by case. So variables outside the userbase of time-bank subscribers don’t (theoretically?) dictate the value of services provided by and for time-bank users
  • Changing of money to time
    To put it short, those with low (or no?) monetary income can afford to buy services through time-banking they otherwise couldn’t afford with money.
  • Scarce availability of services
    Many services provided by time-bank users are hard to make profitable in large scale in money industry. Are there any companies out there who offer car-waxing in your own yard or taking your dog to a walk? With affordable prices?
  • Time-banking grows the sense of community and solidarity in local communities
    Many time-bank websites say so, but this is of course hard to look at objectively. I think it’s quite possible. It’s been reported that many entrepreneurs have started to offer their services in time-bank when their formal business activity has ended.

If time-banking grows to have a large economical impact it threatens the current economical model. I do think it’s natural for a govenment to enforce the current economical model, but I don’t think they should ignore the criticism made towards it or suppress the new model, especially if it can benefit those with low income… those who have the lowest positive impact in the current model anyways.

1 http://aikaapankista.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/tovi-vs-euro

PS: the link leads to a finnish site, I’ll try to find an english equivalent to it when I have the time.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Taxation of Time-banking

This topic is about taxation of Time-banking.

Some time ago, our government (in Finland) decided that certain types of non-monetary services are to be taxed. This involves any kind of services that are traded between two parties (meaning both parties get something in return for the services they provided) and can be considered as an occupation (-I hope that was the right word for it). However voluntary work, charity work or any kind of trading of services with only one receiving party was decided to be left out of taxation.

So how do you feel about the taxation of Time-banking? Should it be taxed or be left out of taxation?

PS: I was going to include taxation of gifts and inheritance in this topic too but then realised that Time-banking is large enough subject to cover the whole topic.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human stupidity

Of course that is a viewpoint about schools in USA. I don’t see the problem being nearly as significant here in Finland.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The concept of "playing God"

Playing God in what way? Also, what ‘playing God’ actually means depends on who you ask. I see 3 categories: Spiritual, Intellectual(=Technological) and Physical. Assuming an omnipotent and omniscient God, it is impossible to play God intellectually and physically to it’s full extent, but I still see society coming closer to it faster and faster. Now, about spiritual aspect: it is subjective and some may even defy that aspect even existing, so I refrain from commenting it. We have a saying here in my country: Matters of taste can’t be argued about. I think they can, but I see it as futile.

Do I want to play God myself? I don’t want to, for example, reach my lifespan beyond our natural maximum age, but I see no reason to be against preventing illnesses (and disorders). I don’t want to change the color of my eyes, or artificially grow my muscles. Etc. So my answer in short: It depends.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

Originally posted by teh_hobo:


http://totalobscurity.com/?p=3339
Thats basically what ive gotten from this thread.

From this thread? Noone in this thread was discussing about content of the Bible in general, but the content relevant to it’s historicity (don’t know about deleted posts though). It’s just your antitheism (or anti-christianity) showing without any relevance to this thread.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / ACORDING TO RADICAL FEMINISTS ALL MEN ARE RAPE SUPPORTERS

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
[…] the comments here and on the blog that demand a similar list for women are an attempt to create a double-standard […]

Ok, I’ll not joke this time. I was not my intention trying to create a double standard, but I see it could be seen as such. Women don’t rape as much as men as far as I know, but it happens. What I was trying to point out was that by her standards (which should be the same to all sexes) there would also be many women who wouldn’t come out clear, yet she still focuses only on men. It is understandable though as men rape the most often, so maybe I was being a dick. As for her list, she does have some points I can agree on, but still most of her points are pretty far-fetched or don’t seem to follow any logic as I see it. She could’ve expanded on them on her blog post… Maybe she does so on the comments section, I haven’t looked at it yet.

Also, to comment on this

criticism is generally beneficial

I agree wholeheartedly, and would add that criticism should be generally taken as beneficial. It’s a good general stance to have (with some possible exceptions).

And I’m really surprised a good thought-out discussion formed out of this; when I first saw this topic I thought “everyone will agree with each other in this one and the blog poster’s points would not be largely taken into consideration”. Glad I was wrong. I didn’t help to prove myself wrong though hehe…