talking about mayhem, you all check www.mayhem.net. it has got nothing to do with the band. but it's the scariest thing i've come across online since 1995, and i now dare not to enter, since i was once too shocked. there is another site, the one with severed limbs (cannot remember the name now), that is nearly as disgusting, but mayhem.net is a totally different level. ugh.
Pure crap talking thread.
- Thread starter Naku ist krig
- Start date
DeepInMisery
Format C: for Cortex
hyena said:
i was once tricked into visiting a gore site.. and that was way back!! (so young
) i think i still haven't recovered. so, NO THANKS! 
Wolfman Von Jones
The trouble with you
mousewings
Member
- Nov 21, 2001
- 3,626
- 84
- 48
For another (older) example of a concert gone wrong look here:
http://www.tennessean.com/celebrities/archives/02/10/23834748.shtml
Id have come back after the concert proclaiming Im selling all my R. Adams CDs and using his money to buy better music (of musicians who dont diss their fans).
I personally find it messed up the fans didnt care their idol is a pretentious snob. Theyre the "angry tools". /forum/images/smilies/lol.gif
http://www.tennessean.com/celebrities/archives/02/10/23834748.shtml
Id have come back after the concert proclaiming Im selling all my R. Adams CDs and using his money to buy better music (of musicians who dont diss their fans).
I personally find it messed up the fans didnt care their idol is a pretentious snob. Theyre the "angry tools". /forum/images/smilies/lol.gif
opacity
Member
just came to my mind....
how would we communicate if language wouldn't have been developed? would we communicate? how would we express our thoughts? telepathy, painting,...?
somewhere I read, language exists to describe complex thoughts and to describe complex proceedings.
but language is often enough too indistinct and not precise; the saying "I'm speechless" shows it best, even if we use this phrase rather to express that we're surprised. but in return, being surprised means that you were not prepared for a certain situation and due to lack of appropriate words, you cannot express how and what you feel at that very moment.
using many words is too little effort and too weak, still. numerous well chosen words may help giving a clearer picture of the thought/feeling that wants to be expressed. but in the end, all the useful words still cannot transmit the real, original thought/feeling either.
summing up: if language is supposed to make feelings and thoughts audible, and to tell your feelings and thoughts to others, it has miserably failed to do this job well.
how would we communicate if language wouldn't have been developed? would we communicate? how would we express our thoughts? telepathy, painting,...?
somewhere I read, language exists to describe complex thoughts and to describe complex proceedings.
but language is often enough too indistinct and not precise; the saying "I'm speechless" shows it best, even if we use this phrase rather to express that we're surprised. but in return, being surprised means that you were not prepared for a certain situation and due to lack of appropriate words, you cannot express how and what you feel at that very moment.
using many words is too little effort and too weak, still. numerous well chosen words may help giving a clearer picture of the thought/feeling that wants to be expressed. but in the end, all the useful words still cannot transmit the real, original thought/feeling either.
summing up: if language is supposed to make feelings and thoughts audible, and to tell your feelings and thoughts to others, it has miserably failed to do this job well.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
@opi: you raise some interesting questions, and i often ponder about similar issues. let's see if i can use language well enough to express my thoughts on language.
for starters: communication is possible through a wide range of means. animals communicate but - it seems - haven't developed any language that actually represents things. here's the first problem.
human language is made of signs that stand for something for now i'm proudly defining "other things". now, one of the things that make it different from the way animals communicate is that there is no conventional system among animals that they are aware of. for instance, we know that a table is a specific object even though we can't see it or feel it in any way, so if i ask you to go to the table in another room, you'll likely be able to do it because in your mind my sentence makes some sense: you know what a table and a room are, and you know what i mean by going. animals manage to direct one another to far-away places anyway, but they don't seem to do that through some conceptual understanding of the process of signifiers. they buzz or gesture or quack or moo some generic instruction that translates to an effect without any actual awareness of another level where these things exist as names, at least not as far as we know.
so my answer to your first set of questions would be: we'd communicate what we need to communicate the same way that animals do. it is highly unlikely that painting - let alone telepathy - would develop before or instead of language, if we're still talking about mankind as they have evolved up to now.
when it comes to being accurate through communication, i tend to concur that the goal of expressing very complex thoughts and feelings is almost never reached with a good margin of success. i guess this might be because we as individuals feel the need to categorize and dissect external inputs, thus simplifying what we hear or read for... faster and easier access to data, i guess.
then again - and here we get philosophical, so thank you for your post - when you talk about the real thought and feeling a question springs to my mind: how do you know there is one?
it seems like you start by assuming there are "objects of the mind" (not only of the mind, of course, but those of the mind look even more frail and harder to prove) and then language exists so as to communicate them to one another. but how do you even know your thoughts and feelings are there in the first place? don't you tell yourself in some way what it is that you think and feel?
then it might just be that abstractions exist only when and because they are told. i know that i can feel, say, loneliness and not tell anyone. but i do need to represent to myself the feeling using the word "loneliness", because that is what identifies a series of inputs in my brain. should they remain unidentified to everyone, who's to say they actually are there?
btw, i don't know why but i'm really looking forward to discuss this further live.
rahvin.
for starters: communication is possible through a wide range of means. animals communicate but - it seems - haven't developed any language that actually represents things. here's the first problem.
human language is made of signs that stand for something for now i'm proudly defining "other things". now, one of the things that make it different from the way animals communicate is that there is no conventional system among animals that they are aware of. for instance, we know that a table is a specific object even though we can't see it or feel it in any way, so if i ask you to go to the table in another room, you'll likely be able to do it because in your mind my sentence makes some sense: you know what a table and a room are, and you know what i mean by going. animals manage to direct one another to far-away places anyway, but they don't seem to do that through some conceptual understanding of the process of signifiers. they buzz or gesture or quack or moo some generic instruction that translates to an effect without any actual awareness of another level where these things exist as names, at least not as far as we know.
so my answer to your first set of questions would be: we'd communicate what we need to communicate the same way that animals do. it is highly unlikely that painting - let alone telepathy - would develop before or instead of language, if we're still talking about mankind as they have evolved up to now.
when it comes to being accurate through communication, i tend to concur that the goal of expressing very complex thoughts and feelings is almost never reached with a good margin of success. i guess this might be because we as individuals feel the need to categorize and dissect external inputs, thus simplifying what we hear or read for... faster and easier access to data, i guess.
then again - and here we get philosophical, so thank you for your post
- when you talk about the real thought and feeling a question springs to my mind: how do you know there is one?it seems like you start by assuming there are "objects of the mind" (not only of the mind, of course, but those of the mind look even more frail and harder to prove) and then language exists so as to communicate them to one another. but how do you even know your thoughts and feelings are there in the first place? don't you tell yourself in some way what it is that you think and feel?
then it might just be that abstractions exist only when and because they are told. i know that i can feel, say, loneliness and not tell anyone. but i do need to represent to myself the feeling using the word "loneliness", because that is what identifies a series of inputs in my brain. should they remain unidentified to everyone, who's to say they actually are there?
btw, i don't know why but i'm really looking forward to discuss this further live.
rahvin.
opacity
Member
rahvin, your last paragraph needs a preliminary discussion, which is an extremely important point itself, imo:
now, what is existing earlier? the feeling/idea or the word for it? aren't words only helping tools that transform something (originally) abstract into something concrete? namely into an audible expression; into an audible supposed-to-be-equivalent?
when you get hurt, isn't there the notion first and only then the word "pain" ? I can't imagine a baby has words or sort of terms for the new impressions it is exposed to. it perceives the world with all its senses and later on learns that there are utterances for all the different perceptions.
idea=thought; also picturized thought -- agreed?
now, what is existing earlier? the feeling/idea or the word for it? aren't words only helping tools that transform something (originally) abstract into something concrete? namely into an audible expression; into an audible supposed-to-be-equivalent?
when you get hurt, isn't there the notion first and only then the word "pain" ? I can't imagine a baby has words or sort of terms for the new impressions it is exposed to. it perceives the world with all its senses and later on learns that there are utterances for all the different perceptions.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
opacity said:
i'm not sure. what is a picturized thought exactly? an aesthetic representation of sorts?
ok. then let's examine this. perceptions exist in a "pure" non-linked-to-words state where the unnamed feeling just takes place. now, is there any way to differentiate one feeling from the other without nominal characterizations? let's remember this is something that only takes place inside our mind, or conscience, as you wish. and only in each one of us, different every time, every time completely new.
aside from calling a single pure feeling "pain" and another "love", and graduating each of them on an infinite scale, it seems to me there is just no way to tell them apart. a baby feels pain or joy without knowing the words, but he merely feels and doesn't know. what exists in his head is suspended in the void until it gets named accordingly to convention.
so convention defines that a certain feeling is "pain" for me, but this often just based on the symptoms we see of that feeling: how could i ever know if "pain" for me relates to the same feeling for you?
it is still blurred, imo, where the process stops creating and starts defining. i do not second either extreme, merely try to play devil's advocate for both since they're not very convincing.
rahvin.
opacity
Member
example:
how do you name the feeling that you have when driving fast over a bridge: right at the turning point when your stomach - due to inertia - remains for fractions of a second too long at the "wrong" position and after this very short time returns to the original place. - it doesn't hurt, it doesn't itch, but it's not neutral either; it's not a feeling like being tickled. it's not like current is flowing. but... what word do you have for this odd sensation?
same with the knee reflex thing (I think knee jerk is the correct term): it doesn't hurt, it doesn't itch, it is not neutral either. but how do you name this sensation? -- these are only banal examples.
but language doesn't have expressions even for such banal things. and yet these sensations exist, and we are strongly aware of them, consciously.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
@opi: i don't know about my words for these feelings, but yours are the ones you just used. complex definitions may require more than mono-vocabulary renditions, right?
again, i'm driven to the thought that the communication that just took place between you and me over that feeling on a bridge did not just depict a sensation, but it had some part in shaping our perception of its existence, if not its existence. or else, we talked about an idea of a sensation we have: i think i understood what you mean, but do we really feel the same when we're on that bridge? can feelings be confined and pin-pointed to a definition at all? if we assume they are not, then the process of formulating and shaping an object through language actually creates the object in the pool of shared/shareable knowledge. no shareable knowledge = no objects.
i know it's way too radical. just think about the theory as is before tuning it down, though i'm sure logic requires a down-tuning of it.
also: next time i'm on a bridge i'll associate whatever my stomach feels to you, thus increasing the detail of my perceptions.
rahvin.
again, i'm driven to the thought that the communication that just took place between you and me over that feeling on a bridge did not just depict a sensation, but it had some part in shaping our perception of its existence, if not its existence. or else, we talked about an idea of a sensation we have: i think i understood what you mean, but do we really feel the same when we're on that bridge? can feelings be confined and pin-pointed to a definition at all? if we assume they are not, then the process of formulating and shaping an object through language actually creates the object in the pool of shared/shareable knowledge. no shareable knowledge = no objects.
i know it's way too radical. just think about the theory as is before tuning it down, though i'm sure logic requires a down-tuning of it.
also: next time i'm on a bridge i'll associate whatever my stomach feels to you, thus increasing the detail of my perceptions.
rahvin.
ok, some thoughts on language in general.
a perfect version of language would be a direct link from the neural system of the speaker to the neural net of the listener. both structures use the same hardware (specialized biomass exchanging messages through electric signals), and run the same software (it seems) to interpret messages. so if anyone would want to express a feeling about something, it would be best if the listener could feel it as well like the speaker is feeling it.
whereas the hardware point of all this seems quite founded and logical (maybe except for people with strange brain diseases like creutzfeld-jacob), on the software matter i believe that humans are not built equally, meaning that one human might interpret the same signals his body sends him totally different from what other humans would make out of it. so there's no possible direct exchange of data without overhead (just like what a protocol like tcp/ip does on the net). one protocol, speech, is quite good but not very exact, because it uses no direct link of bodies. data has to be translated and chunked in packets of small size (words), which have to be sent over a media (voice), and have to be recieved again where the whole thing is reversed. the error quota (or packet-loss) during this process cann occur at various points, at translation from feeling/thought to word, at word processing (if you don't get the right words), at data transmission, and at reverse translation and interpretation. so, all in all, no ideal system. in a comm system where bodies are linked, you won't need to translate stuff, since bodies are the same concerning hardware. so the only problem left is interpretation, which can differ from human to human. some ppl for example get off if they feel pain, others just feel the pain.
so, to get an exact comm system, one has to take a reference human, and create an image of his mind. this would be used to interpret messages from other humans and has either to be present in every human's mind (every human having 2 personalities, then), or stored somewhere where ppl can access it remotely, maybe through telepathy or fancy stuff like that.
if all this is archieved, you had optimal communication without being a hive-mind.
phew... just shook that out of my wrist. hope it understandable
vc
a perfect version of language would be a direct link from the neural system of the speaker to the neural net of the listener. both structures use the same hardware (specialized biomass exchanging messages through electric signals), and run the same software (it seems) to interpret messages. so if anyone would want to express a feeling about something, it would be best if the listener could feel it as well like the speaker is feeling it.
whereas the hardware point of all this seems quite founded and logical (maybe except for people with strange brain diseases like creutzfeld-jacob), on the software matter i believe that humans are not built equally, meaning that one human might interpret the same signals his body sends him totally different from what other humans would make out of it. so there's no possible direct exchange of data without overhead (just like what a protocol like tcp/ip does on the net). one protocol, speech, is quite good but not very exact, because it uses no direct link of bodies. data has to be translated and chunked in packets of small size (words), which have to be sent over a media (voice), and have to be recieved again where the whole thing is reversed. the error quota (or packet-loss) during this process cann occur at various points, at translation from feeling/thought to word, at word processing (if you don't get the right words), at data transmission, and at reverse translation and interpretation. so, all in all, no ideal system. in a comm system where bodies are linked, you won't need to translate stuff, since bodies are the same concerning hardware. so the only problem left is interpretation, which can differ from human to human. some ppl for example get off if they feel pain, others just feel the pain.
so, to get an exact comm system, one has to take a reference human, and create an image of his mind. this would be used to interpret messages from other humans and has either to be present in every human's mind (every human having 2 personalities, then), or stored somewhere where ppl can access it remotely, maybe through telepathy or fancy stuff like that.
if all this is archieved, you had optimal communication without being a hive-mind.
phew... just shook that out of my wrist. hope it understandable
vc
Rei Toei
not quite human
rahvin
keeper of the flame
very interesting way of putting it, vc.
i have two... objections, i guess. the first concerns the structure of your feelings-feelings system: if there is no intermediate passage, is it still possible to call it language? instantanous transmission shouldn't leave room for any third party to "interpret" anything. unless you mean data is transferred at a sub-level, i.e., when the first subject already has translated pure feelings to something else, and is sent to the recipient before at a point where he still has to translate it back to their pure, non-word state.
now, if that's the case i'd say we risk some sort of ad infinitum regression, because i'm not sure we can even conceive the existence of a transmission of data that does away with any sort of intermediate passage. the mere fact that we're talking about movement of said data seems to imply a transition process from their state as resident in our minds to another, non-specified state when they cover the distance. otherwise, let's face it: it's called identity. of course if we were symbiotic there would be no translation needed: objects of the mind would just exist, eternal, in our collective brain.
my second observation is about interpretation: you say it can differ from human to human. i say we can never know how much and can never compare the differences, because it is impossible for one individual to be another individual at the same time. feelings occupy single cells of space and time, so every instant except the one where the individual feels it is already a translation and a shift in perspective.
rahvin.
i have two... objections, i guess. the first concerns the structure of your feelings-feelings system: if there is no intermediate passage, is it still possible to call it language? instantanous transmission shouldn't leave room for any third party to "interpret" anything. unless you mean data is transferred at a sub-level, i.e., when the first subject already has translated pure feelings to something else, and is sent to the recipient before at a point where he still has to translate it back to their pure, non-word state.
now, if that's the case i'd say we risk some sort of ad infinitum regression, because i'm not sure we can even conceive the existence of a transmission of data that does away with any sort of intermediate passage. the mere fact that we're talking about movement of said data seems to imply a transition process from their state as resident in our minds to another, non-specified state when they cover the distance. otherwise, let's face it: it's called identity. of course if we were symbiotic there would be no translation needed: objects of the mind would just exist, eternal, in our collective brain.
my second observation is about interpretation: you say it can differ from human to human. i say we can never know how much and can never compare the differences, because it is impossible for one individual to be another individual at the same time. feelings occupy single cells of space and time, so every instant except the one where the individual feels it is already a translation and a shift in perspective.
rahvin.
oh, i was just talking about the theory. i always compare these things with computers and their way to handle it. a shizophrenic human would maybe be a computer with several os's installed. but it is possible to emulate one os under another, and this technique could be used in order to create a protected area of storage where the other os, meaning the mind of the reference person, is run and can be used soleyly for comm purposes. the user of this "other piece of mind" is quite aware that it is there, like a linux system emulating windows knows that there is smoe other software running, but for the linux, it's a black box. the same would be the case with humans. they had an additional comm module and just send and receive through this module without knowing what is going on in there, and they need not know. the problem is, is i just realized, that you can only communicate feelings and thoughts that the reference mind can have... that's quite a drawback.
to your first point: sure, even instant transmission of "feeling data" can be subject to interpretation. just think of alcohol. your body sends your brain a message containing something like "i have 2 per mille alcohol in blood". YOU interpret, "damn i'm drunk", whereas an alcoholics body and mind might think "everything normal". so body data can only be shared equally if the body and mind is the same => hive mind. or a windows terminal server with multiple open sessions
so i stand back from the point that hardware doesn't need to be exactly the same.. i think it has, i fear. this leaves only the chance to build a "language" which is based on the greatest common divisor of all humans' bodies and minds. and that is indeed very unlikely to archieve.
on the second point you mentioned, sure, in a universe, nothing is really equal, but you have to grant equalizations in order to describe a system with fewer data than the system itself has. let's do it as in math and speak of <=>.
to your first point: sure, even instant transmission of "feeling data" can be subject to interpretation. just think of alcohol. your body sends your brain a message containing something like "i have 2 per mille alcohol in blood". YOU interpret, "damn i'm drunk", whereas an alcoholics body and mind might think "everything normal". so body data can only be shared equally if the body and mind is the same => hive mind. or a windows terminal server with multiple open sessions
so i stand back from the point that hardware doesn't need to be exactly the same.. i think it has, i fear. this leaves only the chance to build a "language" which is based on the greatest common divisor of all humans' bodies and minds. and that is indeed very unlikely to archieve.
on the second point you mentioned, sure, in a universe, nothing is really equal, but you have to grant equalizations in order to describe a system with fewer data than the system itself has. let's do it as in math and speak of <=>.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
VultureCulture said:
exactly! equalizations = conventions. my pain <=> your pain. we smash on the sides of the corridor just to squeeze the tiniest portion of information through the tiny minuscule hole on the far end of it. and then, once it got through to the other side, it gets amplified again and distorted in so many ways, until it reaches the point where we think we recognize it by proximity: "ah," we're likely to say to ourselves "what we have here is [personal feelings code #.........]".
now i sometimes ask myself: aside from the fact that this system seems to have a standard of good results slightly below 1%, how exactly have we created a code for our own feelings? did it rely on external, falsely experimental data (eg hearing people screaming = pain), or are we born with one? or do we cheat ourselves into believing we're always using the same reference table?
rahvin.
opacity
Member
i think this code was slowly developed during evolution. as life got more complex, also this code got more and more refined and more complex. so, I think to a certain degree it was given by nature and later evolution and experience did the rest (still does probably). similar to the issue "instinct and intelligence"rahvin said:
i guess he wanted to lay stress on the point that we nowadays have a reference table called speech, which is incomplete in many ways, and that people might be judged wrong or be misunderstood because the language doesn't fit to their feelings, because the words are not there. but humans fail to see their language system is imperfect, and so they take wrong consequences.
but i guess people can live quite good with approximate statements. "i feel ill" conveys all the listener needs to know if he's not a doctor. a deeply evolved code of speech would slow down evolution and life in general (take a look at the ents), so if you are about to design a language, you have to wage efficiency against detail. i guess humans have found quite a good way. if you compare languages from different branches, they all end up somewhere in the golden middle. and mankind has brought these languages onto different protocols, like voice, gestures, visual effects (alphabet, morse code), and so on. so our languages are quite adaptable and modular. again, it's like a computer: adding more detail => more data => needs more space (in the brain) => slows down connections between computer (speakers). on the other hand: decreasing data while message remains the same => needs more processor time from client and server (speaker and listener), increases chance of wrongly encoded packets (misunderstandings).
choose your evil. humans could more easily work on a new medium apart from the 5 senses to convey language. like a plug in the head or something.
but i guess people can live quite good with approximate statements. "i feel ill" conveys all the listener needs to know if he's not a doctor. a deeply evolved code of speech would slow down evolution and life in general (take a look at the ents
), so if you are about to design a language, you have to wage efficiency against detail. i guess humans have found quite a good way. if you compare languages from different branches, they all end up somewhere in the golden middle. and mankind has brought these languages onto different protocols, like voice, gestures, visual effects (alphabet, morse code), and so on. so our languages are quite adaptable and modular. again, it's like a computer: adding more detail => more data => needs more space (in the brain) => slows down connections between computer (speakers). on the other hand: decreasing data while message remains the same => needs more processor time from client and server (speaker and listener), increases chance of wrongly encoded packets (misunderstandings).choose your evil. humans could more easily work on a new medium apart from the 5 senses to convey language. like a plug in the head or something.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
Hearse said:I'm just bored and wanted to say Hello to all!
hearse and his quest for rep. an interesting variation on hearse and his quest for p... uh, women.
rahvin.
