Oh come on...we both know you don't think "boring"...you think "blood-boilingly offensive" and lament the loss of the former glory and torture power of the Holy See.
And while I do think that Digi has often very illuminating insights, your thread and posts are still utter garbage, WD.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
Yeah there are. As Gav pointed out quite decently and you disregarded with silliness (as usual).
And I have heard of Oscar the Grouch (through The Office, but nevermind that), I have no idea what "One fine stroke" means or refers to.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
Digi, i was reading what you said, would you say imagination is limited by our knowledge. Therefore to expand ones knowledge one is also explaining their ability to imagine new things?
__________________
Oh come on...we both know you don't think "boring"...you think "blood-boilingly offensive" and lament the loss of the former glory and torture power of the Holy See.
Take an emotion. Any will do. Happiness, maybe. We have the word for it, and we have experiences of happiness, which aren't happiness itself but are manifestations of it. So there's a frame of reference. And the events are the physical, tangible way of representing that feeling, along with the word(s) associated with it. Your lover's face, for example, might be an internal representation of it...part of the meta-language that allows you to understand and imagine happiness. We imagine in symbols, not in literal emotions...we can imagine happiness, but it's an abstract. A collection of words and symbols that we play together, not something that can be understood in pure ethereal form.
Now say you knew the word, but hadn't experienced happiness. You could imagine the word, perhaps its function in a sentence. But you couldn't imagine happiness the emotion. No frame of reference. No knowledge of it. And until that experience occurs, you couldn't spontaneously generate it on your own (i.e. imagine it).
In other words (which re-caps my earlier points) consciousness (and therefore imagination) are only as broad as our language, so long as we interpret language in its broadest sense of symbolic representation, not merely spoken language. Otherwise there is no frame of reference, nothing we can imagine. No "pure" abstract consciousness within us. Then to gain knowledge, experience, words, whatever, is to expand the limits of our consciousness.
So yes, the two are tied together interchangeably imo. Glad you're interested.
Even if imagination can be "infinite" it doesn't mean that there aren't limits to it.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
Oh come on...we both know you don't think "boring"...you think "blood-boilingly offensive" and lament the loss of the former glory and torture power of the Holy See.
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
My wife currently teaches grade four students. When she tries to get them to do some creative writing or use their imagination, she continually gets regurgitated ideas of video games, cartoons or t.v. shows.
Every year this seems to be getting more and more prevalent.
So I would think that, currently, ineffectual parenting and corporate marketing are putting limits on the imaginations of children. Interesting to see where this trend leads.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
Interesting thing about Infinity: it should include limits, otherwise there is something "outside of infinity," in which case it really isn't infinite.
I can type mine out faster.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
That's not really correct though. For example take numbers. The Natural Numbers are infinite, yet they have many limits (for example no negative numbers). So, infinity, doesn't imply everythingness or lack of limits.
Which is funny considering the root of the word. Still true though
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
I should've qualified...
In the case of natural numbers, I would call this an example of linear infinity, and what you're saying is true. It's rather one-dimensional ("1, 2, 3..."), therefore things can be "outside" of it (eg, neg #s) w/o contradicting its infiniteness. But I was referring to (for lack of a better term) "full-dimensional" infinity.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Even assuming that this infinity is a sort of everything exists (which is quite hard to even phrase in words), I still don't think that it means that imagination itself is limited. The existence of such an "infinity" does not mean that our imagination can grasp and conceive of it.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
Agreed, and I believe this was my initial point: if (as Digi elucidated) imagination is dependent on inner representation (concrete or symbolic) of our experiences, then an unending supply of experiences would permit an unending supply of what can be imagined (ie, there's more stuff for imagination to play with). Our imagination just might not be infinite in the same sort of way (linear, as opposed to full).
It is hard to phrase in words. Let me throw this into the discussion: What does it say about imagination--about human beings--that we are even aware of the idea of infinity, if being unable to actually imagine/envision it?
(Personally, I always found the following to be the closest thing to imagining infinity: the many-worlds hypothesis. To imagine that universes are constantly splitting off from one another everytime any given atom zigs instead of zags...I find my mind just stops dead in its tracks after a second or so of trying).
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
KMC Community Forums
I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music 
Oct 29th, 2008 05:06 AM
