We've sent a verification link by email
Didn't receive the email? Check your Spam folder, it may have been caught by a filter. If you still don't see it, you can resend the verification email.
Based on freesound.org's file Synth Kick 3 of the member Hard3eat Soundz.
1. Open the file Synth Kick 3 on WaveLab.
2. Process > Pitch bend (or press the B key). Keep the first 25 msec or 35 msec (attack) unchanged, then immediately drop the pitch -3 semitones and gradually reach -6 semitones at the end.
3. Edit > Trim (Ctrl +BkSp) to make the duration the same as the original or slightly tighter/shorter.
4. Select MultiBand Compressor as the effect, with the soft clip on and render the file. Do not distort too much. We want few extra harmonics, but not too many, because the file becomes unusable (the point is to use the file for years, not to impress yourself momentarily but never actually use it). If you made a mistake press Ctrl + Z. When you make a single mistake, don't continue to make mistakes because sometimes its impossible to reach any specific moment in edit history.
5. Select the end section by pressing the Insert key button at the beginning of the region you want to start editing. Open the end section on Process > Level envelope V and draw the fade out you want. Correct with Ctrl + Z. Sometimes what you imagined isn't correct, so you have to listen. It's considered a higher quality fade out, the double fade out, in which you don't fade immediately to zero ㏈, but to some value, and then you apply a final fade out. It sounds more natural. It's better to draw your fade envelope, especially when the waveform is intricate/complex.
Type
Wave (.wav)
Duration
0:00.312
File size
57.8 KB
Sample rate
44100.0 Hz
Bit depth
16 bit
Channels
Stereo
4 years, 1 month ago
Γαμώ τον Ιησού Χριστό
______________
θεϊσμός:
η μεροληπτική θεώρηση της παρρυθμιστικής επικράτησης της προσωποσύνης
______________
είναι αυταπόδεικτη η προσυμπαντικότητα της προσωποσύνης;
Εσύ αποδέχεσαι ως αυταπόδεικτη την προσυμπαντικότητα της έννοιας του προσώπου; Είναι αυτονόητο να θεωρείται η έννοια του προσώπου/νοοφορέα ο κοσμογόνος πανσκοπός ή μήπως έτσι ισχυρίζονται τα μέτριας ευφυΐας πρόσωπα;
______________
προσωποσύνη: αυταπόδεικτος πανσκοπός
_______
Ο άθεος έχει επίγνωση της καταληκτικότητας του θανάτου του.
Ο θεϊστής, όντας μεροληπτικός για τον αυταπόδεικτα παρρυθμιστικό ρόλο της προσωποσύνης·
υβριστικά ταυτίζει τον θάνατο με την προσωπική του αθανασία.
______________
είναι το αυταπόδεικτο αληθές;
______________
μη εθνικοποίηση προσωπικών πεποιθήσεων
Η αρχή της πλειοψηφίας βάσει των ανθρώπινων δικαιωμάτων δεν αιτιολογεί την εθνικοποίηση προσωπικών πεποιθήσεων σε εθνική σημαία και Σύνταγμα χώρας. Οι αξίες ιεραρχούνται. Η κρατικοποίηση μίας δοξαστικής παράδοσης δεν είναι ανώτερη αξία από την μη παραβίαση του ατομικού χαρακτήρα των προσωπικών πεποιθήσεων. Η κρατικοποίηση δεν είναι ο μόνος τρόπος σεβασμού μίας από τις πολλές παραδόσεις ενός έθνους.
_______
Is immateriality a personhood-biased something and not utter nothing?
I love science and definitions, not based on common sense, because common sense being useful in everyday life, is personhood-biased as a means to understand the cosmomechanics (how this or other cosmoi function).
Any process, either creates matter (patterns in nothing, that's the quantum foam; see: Robert W. Spekkens at the Perimeter Institute) being fundamental like the electron field and all the other fields in physics we have proof they exist, or like thought aren't cosmically fundamental (because the universe isn't personhood-biased) is based on matter.
There are two ways to prove something (I do not include common sense = persuasion = philosophy; because via persuasion anything - including myths - is possible).
1. physical data recorded in a scientific manner; observational data
2. mathematical proofs with causal coherence (not a collage of formulas, because that's a philosophical trickery, not a causal proof)
Metalogical proofs, which prove the definitions of the terms used in the definitions.
_________
Immateriality isn't attributable to different people, neither it may handle information, nor is it different than nothing as the lay-person indirectly claims through any personhood-biased religion.
_______
Is immeteriality / nothing a personhood-biased something?
Nothing and immateriality aren't attributable to different dead or living people as souls. Immateriality isn't a thinking mechanism. Even quantum field theory is based on a probabilistic foam; thus any function within nothing, is no longer nothing but something which follows some physics. Even if the soul obeyed different physics, still it would require some formalism of interactions (physics and materialism; study information theory, matter is the only holder, compartmentalizer and connector of information). god = supposed self-caused precosmic cosmogonic bearer of personhood and the omnicause [cause of everything], theism = the claim that infinity is a person, but without any methodical elaboration on it - According to metalogic, personhood has nothing to do with cosmogony. According to psychology (clinical psychology based on facts, and not mere theoretical psychology) personhood is shaped via the interaction with other persons [personhood-bearers] / religion = personhood-bias at the cosmological level; the claim that personhood is the omnicause and the sole criterion of everything / Humanistically any non-criminal opinion is of equal value. Scientifically and philosophically only thoroughly elaborate and causal theories have value.
______
______
The common hypernym of atheism and religion is "metaphysical worldview".
Metaphysics is hyperonymous to ontology, because it asks way more questions.
The academic definition of metaphysics is about a field of study and its questions; not necessarily restricted to magical and religious answers; because even science can be applied as a tool of metaphysical analysis. Not all thinkers use the same tools. And yes. They debate about who is correct. And yes. Science has a metaphysical impact; cancelling the supposedly self-evident, self-caused, cosmogonic first bearer of personhood (fishy Cod or god).
Atheism isn't physics, but the metaphysical impact of science on the lay-person.
_____
In ever dictionary atheism is defined only as "non-belief in the supposedly self-caused precosmic bearer of personhood who caused the world"
and the rejection of the existence of many gods.
According to Robert Sapolsky (at Stanford University), but also according to surveys on "metaphysical worldviews", some "atheists" believe in ghosts, souls, or other forms of the supernatural. Of course they aren't the leading force within the atheist movement.
The lay-atheist usually accepts the definition of the hypernyms non-spirituality, non-supernaturalism, etc which are wider than atheism (mere denial of gods). The brand "atheism" is very strong to be abandoned for a more accurate hypernym though.
We should mention the "non-personhood-biased metaphysics of atheism" and the weakness of atheism to create strong atheochurches.
Atheists usually focus on mocking others.
Wise atheists should be positive people teaching simplified science to the lay-person (popular science for everyone and why personhood isn't self-caused as the fields physics; we need a metalogical explanation why space-time is self-caused and why personhood and its bearers aren't self-caused but secondary and dwelling inside the fundamental space-time).
Atheism cannot self-differentiate well.
Religions self-differentiate, and that makes them strong.
Atheism is weak, because it cannot differentiate into different atheo-unions.
Lay-people want to differentiate, and that way express a wider range of ideas; because the doctrine isn't only about the metaphysics, but also about the everyday specifics of conduct which are different among the denominations.
The atheist who follows an atheist union (atheochurch) is indirectly forced towards mediocrity.
A good Facebook-atheist has necessarily to be a simpleton who mocks theists.
Most Facebook-atheists erroneously claim:
1. evil doesn't exist in the world (they lie of course)
2. god is evil and doesn't feed the poor African children
Evil is proof for non-existence (the Facebook-atheist erroneously claims).
We can say evil is proof the Christian god doesn't exist; but because evil exists, some non-Christian god might exist (the Facebook-atheist is Western-biased = anti-Abrahamist).
A wiser atheist would focus on analyzing why personhood isn't precosmic, self-caused, and why metalogic matters.
Modern physics isn't metalogically complete.
Any theory, in order to be complete, it has to mathematically prove the terms used on its proof.
Of course physics tries to do that, and religion doesn't.
That should be mentioned.
Atheism will evolve of course; as any other "metaphysical worldview" does and did.
I didn't mention the introduction of "information theory" on the analysis of personhood. And why god isn't a "simple in philosophy" (mereology) having many different memories. Even a single memory is comprised of many shannons (units of information), which aren't ascribed as one (immateriality = nothing [itself, not some spacetime within nothing, if that has any meaning as a definition], cannot hold, compartmentalize and ascribe information, persons, processes, etc).
4 years, 1 month ago
Lec 1 | MIT 6.042J Mathematics for Computer Science, Fall 2010
Establishing Truth - Tom Leighton - MIT -YouTube