Oddworld Forums

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   cogito ergo sum (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=19827)

OANST 12-17-2010 06:40 AM

:

()
I watched a film that said babies, because of their undeveloped minds, think an object disappears from existence if it moves out of their field of vision. I don't know if that is related to what you were saying, but there ya go.

Peekaboo!

Wings of Fire 12-17-2010 07:05 AM

Object permenance doesn't develop in children until they're old enough to realize themselves in relation to the world. At the age of around four.

Bullet Magnet 12-17-2010 07:10 AM

:

()
You do have to learn how to see (i.e. interpret information from eyes), though. If only once. Whether that process involves concsious thought, I've no idea.

You can recreate that experience through the use of special helmets that inverse your vision. It transforms you from a suave ladykiller into clumsy fool, until you adjust. Then you have the helmet confiscated and you get to adjust again.

OANST 12-17-2010 07:19 AM

I used to wear a special helmet.

MeechMunchie 12-17-2010 07:26 AM

I still do. It stops the aliens from reading my mind.

OANST 12-17-2010 07:28 AM

Mine has a drool cup.

STM 12-17-2010 10:23 AM

My special helmet has straps so that when I strain in bed I can't fall out...bastards

Nate 12-17-2010 03:49 PM

:

()
Object permenance doesn't develop in children until they're old enough to realize themselves in relation to the world. At the age of around four.

It can't be that old. My 18 month-old niece knows I'm still around the house even if she can't see me. That's why she likes playing hide and seek.

I think perhaps you're talking about that thing that I can't remember the name of, in which children think that the nature of an object is defined by its appearance. Thus, they would think that a man in woman's clothing has become a woman or that a dog with a cat mask on has become a cat.

Wings of Fire 12-17-2010 03:51 PM

I'm talking about out of sight out of mind, where if you're not the primary caregiver, you cease to exist if you can't be seen.

And I may have been a little high.

Nate 12-17-2010 04:07 PM

:

()
And I may have been a little high.

High in your estimation, or have you taken up a new hobby?

Wings of Fire 12-17-2010 04:12 PM

I'm not at liberty to answer that.

MA 12-18-2010 08:06 AM

DRUGS R BAD DRUGS R BAD

i now take drugs.

ziggy 12-18-2010 08:50 AM

So all philosophers are stoners.

OANST 12-18-2010 08:56 AM

All philosophers are stones.

STM 12-18-2010 01:08 PM

All stones are philosophers.

Manco 12-18-2010 01:28 PM

Philosopher's Stone am I right guys?

someone had to

STM 12-18-2010 01:29 PM

Your right!

T-nex 12-18-2010 01:35 PM

:

()
Your right!

No. Your left!

STM 12-18-2010 01:36 PM

I'm centre left actually!

LDG519 12-18-2010 02:14 PM

Okay I must admit I havent read every single post in this thread yet so there may be a facter that disproves my argument.

my theory is that if we were made up there would be chunks missing in our lives, all the major factors would exist but little details would be missing, such as what time you got up in the morning or how many cupcakes you had at a party, I base this on the premis of who can think up a whole 18 years of constant things happening without skipping some small details

Bullet Magnet 12-18-2010 02:18 PM

:

()
Okay I must admit I havent read every single post in this thread yet so there may be a facter that disproves my argument.

my theory is that if we were made up there would be chunks missing in our lives, all the major factors would exist but little details would be missing, such as what time you got up in the morning or how many cupcakes you had at a party, I base this on the premis of who can think up a whole 18 years of constant things happening without skipping some small details

Can you remember 18 years of your life without missing some details? Did those missing details ever actually occur? How do you know?

LDG519 12-18-2010 03:07 PM

good point

STM 12-19-2010 12:40 AM

For something to exist forever, there must be something as solid evidence like a photograph, if the great wall of china, in 600 years collapsed and some how, after another 600 years all evidence of it's existence, besides a few legendary stories, was destroyed, did it ever exist?

Nate 12-19-2010 02:21 AM

:

()
For something to exist forever, there must be something as solid evidence like a photograph, if the great wall of china, in 600 years collapsed and some how, after another 600 years all evidence of it's existence, besides a few legendary stories, was destroyed, did it ever exist?

What's your point? Are you trying to disprove God's existence now?

T-nex 12-19-2010 02:25 AM

If a tree falls down in a forest, but there's no one to hear it, did it truly make a sound? Omgwtfbbq D=

Nate 12-19-2010 02:28 AM

Yes, of course it did. Sound is merely the vibration of atoms, it doesn't need an audience to exist.

T-nex 12-19-2010 02:39 AM

Well, I'd have answered: It makes vibrations, because sound is what we hear. Or soundwaves.

It will never make a sound the same way which is translated in our ears, if there was no ear to translate it. Whooptie!

Nate 12-19-2010 02:43 AM

Okay, here's a nice philosophical question for you: How do you know that the sound as it is translated to your ear is the same as how it's translated in my ear?

And how do you know that you see the colour blue in the same way that I do? Perhaps I see blue the way you see red!

T-nex 12-19-2010 02:46 AM

But the soundwave still get's translated into something in your ear. May not be the same as mine, but it was just vibration before it hit something that could translate it it something. uh.. Yeah. Something like that.

And the fact is that even if we don't see the same colors, we still do see colors.

Manco 12-19-2010 09:05 AM

Unless one of us is colourblind.