The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Y111
User Name: Y111
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Joined: Sunday, June 25, 2017
Last Visit: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:32:04 AM
Number of Posts: 296
[0.03% of all post / 0.49 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: which number
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:31:04 AM
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
In Russian it sounds as "Which one by number"

Rather, 'by count'. Which by count president was Kennedy?
Topic: Are you confident with your English
Posted: Monday, February 4, 2019 10:23:25 AM
By that time we will be all perfectly dead. So at least one kind of perfection is perfectly attainable by a mere mortal. And we, ordinary people, have much better chances than someone like Shakespeare. He is still alive in some sense, and who knows how long will it take him to catch up with us.
Topic: Genius
Posted: Friday, February 1, 2019 1:03:36 AM
Only if Putin wants that. Don't forget that you are all our puppets. :)
Topic: How Soon Will the Carbon Bubble Pop?
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:11:06 AM
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
But in order to reach that level of development we need normal conditions to live and work in.

Why couldn't we live and work in Africa? It won't be as hot as now there at those cool times. The world population will likely decrease in the coming centuries, so by that time it may well be small enough to fit comfortably in the warm territories.
Topic: How Soon Will the Carbon Bubble Pop?
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 6:10:11 AM
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Why would one want another 100 thousand years of global winter?

Not global. There will be no ice in Africa, I believe. Otherwise life would not have survived in the previous ice ages. No bear can sleep for 100 thousand years.
Topic: Lies and more lies...
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2019 11:39:49 AM
When you are raking, you emit more carbon dioxide and warmth into the air. Not good for global warming. We should all stay calm and breathe slowly.

This is one more reason why robots are better than humans — they don't breathe.
Topic: Do you know what would happen if we knew the date and time of our death? #59
Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:55:11 AM
Perhaps people would spend all their lives trying to find a way to cheat the fate and to live longer. Or shorter, which would also be a challenge. I wonder what would happen to those who jumped off a skyscraper. Would some invisible force catch them in the air and carry safely to the ground? That would be fun. You could do anything and live absolutely recklessly. Food would mysteriously emerge in your fridge so you wouldn't die of starvation before your death date. You could walk naked in deadly frost or through fire. You could even walk on the moon without a space suit.
Topic: Why Should a Person Die?
Posted: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46:11 PM
I agree. This is how humankind develops. It needs fresh minds able to accommodate new concepts. People are not computers, you can't delete your operating system and install a newer version. It gets installed once and for all as you grow up and can only be tweaked later to some extent. Sooner or later it gets outdated. Besides, it has bugs. Again, they can't be fixed as easily as in software.
Topic: Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 2:32:01 AM
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
You said the good and the bad are relative notions. How come you call it "The only one that we know to exist."?

The only goodness that we know to exist is the relative one. We don't know the absolute goodness, do we?

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
It's the other way around. Human society is in flux because it doesn't know absolute things.

Either way. Everything is in flux, so it's no wonder that our notion of goodness is too.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
Moral standards can't exist without us knowing what is good and what is bad.

But they exist even though we don't know the absolute good and bad. This is a fact. Apparently those absolutes are not necessary for the existence of moral standards.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
It's not about what you know, it's about what you can prove. You can prove that 2+2 is 4.

Proving is deriving something from something else using logic. Since all that we know is relative, I am not sure we can prove anything absolute even theoretically. We know some facts, but not all facts. Maybe there is a place in the universe where 2+2=5 because if you put 2 and 2 things together, they turn into 5. To people living there it would be natural and logical.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
You don't see many things, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

It doesn't mean they do exist either. It's a bit silly to live in an imaginary world. If I don't see anyone under my bed, I conclude there is nobody there. I think it's reasonable until I have some evidence to the contrary.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
You seem to fail to see the difference between something one really wants to do and something one does for want of anything better.

There is always something better, at least in your imagination. However, if you didn't want to come here, you wouldn't. Real is what manifests itself. Learning a language is a real lot of time and effort, and you have to really want to learn it in order to succeed.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
It's like an animal way of existence. It feels like it click well with you approach to reality.

We are animals, whether you like it or not. My approach to reality is to try to avoid denying it as much as possible. Is yours the opposite?

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
I don't know. Maybe we are not alone. Maybe it depends on a person. But this reality is too complicated to be a result of accident.

Or maybe it's not too complicated. Who can know for sure? Nobody has absolute knowledge. Besides, you said above that it's not about knowing but about proving. Can you prove it's too complicated?
Topic: Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 2:31:55 AM
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
If goodness changes depending on who measures it then what kind of goodness is that?

The only one that we know to exist. The only one that affects our lives. That it's in flux is only logical because human society is in flux, and it serves its needs.

Whereas the abstraction of absolute goodness seems to be no more than a toy for an idle mind. Or an excuse for someone who doesn't want to abide by the existing moral standards.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
If you consider something good and someone else considers the same bad then neither of you knows what is good and what is bad.

Then, if I think that 2+2=4 and you think that 2+2=5, neither of us knows the correct sum. Right? :)

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
I am pretty sure there must be some absolute goodness which doesn't change according to man's desire.

Unless you can find it, it's pretty useless. Maybe there is also an absolute food somewhere but people get hungry here and now, so they use the food that is at hand, and it works pretty well.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
According to your approach it sounds as you are (a human being) to decide what it good and what is bad.

Yes, why not? Who else? I don't see anyone around except other human beings. Either we agree to play by the rules that exist or change them sooner or later. If some god arrives, then he may decide what is good, but until then we will do on our own.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
If every person is a zero then collecting ten zeros won't add up anything because ten by zero is still zero.

So you see no difference between, for example, a pile of car parts and a car? I was talking about people who are in relations with one another and not a disparate collection of random individuals.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
I didn't say in ITSELF, I said in ONESELF.

Yes, so what? My point is you can't extract the meaning of a word from the word itself or the meaning of a life from the life itself. I.e. if you take either of them in isolation. Meaning is relative.

With a person it's more tricky because other people live in our mind. Even if you stay alone you will think of them, talk to them and imagine their reaction to your actions and their opinion about yourself. Consciously or unconsciously.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
I am not sure how it's possible to sincerely value transitory things. How it's possible to appreciate the vapor which is our life.

But it's clear that you value at least this forum and the English language, even though they are both transitory. How do you manage to do that?

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
The real questions remains: What did mankind come to existence for?

As far as it concerns us and not our imaginary creator, the answer is obvious: to be born, to live and to die. Even if there is a creator, he or she obviously doesn't expect any more from us. Otherwise we wouldn't have been left alone.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.