Comments on: When you vomit food for thought.

By: p.

p. — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:19:06 +0000

Thought-provoking. I’ve just started studying Economics as a subject, and this “vomit” has definitely raised some questions in my head–a nice contrast with how my teacher painted Economics as the ‘toughest subject ever’ and made it sound so scary.
Thanks! Just what I needed.

By: thinkMoult - The economics of technology «

thinkMoult - The economics of technology « — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:48:26 +0000

[...] while back I told people why you do what you do – in a nutshell, every action you take is the action that you believe will cause yourself the [...]

By: Dion Moult

Dion Moult — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:01:31 +0000

Ironically I was just typing up a blog post due for release tomorrow (well, my time tomorrow is in 2 hours so it should be out very soon) which has everything to do with what I eat.

So if you can wait that long you’ll see exactly what I eat :)

By: Rish

Rish — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:28:57 +0000

Hmmmm…thanks for that. I love wiki-ing random things and that was quite intersting. Reminds me of the “Do not read this sentence.” sentence.
So yeah. that is true, we can’t really explain anything without defining it first.
Your vomit sure leads to quite …intersting… discussions. What do you eat?

By: Dion Moult

Dion Moult — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:15:18 +0000

To give a generic answer to both Hans and your little premature conclusion to “the love argument” I’d like to draw your attention to a lovely little thing called Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

The Wikipedia page knows volumes more about it in details I haven’t the time for, but the gist of it is that any axiom (aka common sense, or “life”) cannot be represented by a mathematical system that is both complete and consistent – that is, the system must always be either incomplete, or inconsistent.

So when Han’s says it’s not a science, and when you say nobody can define love I’d like the point out that any sort of _completely indisputable_ topic _must_ be within the confines of a working mathematical system and where it is known to work. Love as a topic is probably the furthest away anybody’ll ever get from an axiom that can be even remotely represented by a mathematical system and thus before further discussion can take place we must place it under certain conditions – or in this case, assumptions, because nobody ever agrees on these conditions. It no longer becomes a theory but instead a model. Of course it’s most likely a highly inaccurate model, but a starting point nonetheless.

In a nutshell, the definition of love is the most important assumption anybody must make before attempting to have a discussion about any of its other aspects (eg: is love good/bad?).

By: Rish

Rish — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:29:39 +0000

No, Dion, Hans is simply a bored, annoying student, who *I* thought would also like this blog. But apparently he was in the annoying mood.

Hmmm, that is true. But I feel that you can’t really define love. It is, and it isn’t. Its small things to one person, and all the big ones to another. To some people it is an extension of lust, while to others, it is the complete opposite. And here, we can branch of into the specific types of love we are talking about, and so, it becomes even more vague. And even when it is defined as “wanting the best for ____”, it can be both good AND bad. Ah, imho, it is just too confusing.

By: Dion Moult

Dion Moult — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:10:35 +0000

Hans, if you’re a spam bot advertising a tool to stay thin you’d be better off providing a link.

Rish, I mean that most of the debates on the effects of love are simply because many people don’t have a clear definition of “what is love”? Having a definition allows people to differentiate between caring and lust – and thus “an obsession for deluded masochists” might not be what people call love.

By: HANS SOLO

HANS SOLO — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:18:16 +0000

hmm i didnt bother reading this stuff coz vomit is vomit, its not a science its just a function, but this tool helps you stay thin

By: Rish

Rish — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:18:53 +0000

> I like your style
Why THANK YOU :) I love writing poetry, stories, and what not. :p

>Though love through the definition of “wanting the best for ___” does clear up quite a lot of the debates between love = good or bad.
What do you mean?

We should have a longer conversation :)

By: Dion Moult

Dion Moult — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:51:47 +0000

> Oh, not to mention, i wrote a poem, titled love, concluding with the line an obsession for deluded masochists. So creepily similar.

I like your style :) Though love through the definition of “wanting the best for ___” does clear up quite a lot of the debates between love = good or bad.

I haven’t heard of the Gaia principle before, but a quick wiki search helped that. It does remind me of a part in the Hitchhiker’s guide series where the characters interact with an improbability drive and the results where relationships occur are deemed more improbable. Eg: if you flip a coin, you have a 50/50 chance of heads or tails. But if your best friend is planning to hit you depending on the outcome, then it’s no longer a 50/50 chance. This suggests that relationships or interactions between events are indeed a natural phenomenon as much as anything else.