# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## [Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

3482 posts

- Page 54 of 140
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- …
- 140
- Next

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue May 14, 2013 4:15 pm

> zugschef wrote:no art is not a science. but you can analyze art scientifically. you can analyze literature scientifically.

You can analyze anything scientifically, because the human brain and everything derived from it is literally the result of chemistry and physics. But even though you can scientifically analyze the process of the human brain creating art, the actual art does not follow any general laws and provides no knowledge to be tested.

> zugschef wrote:without philosophy there wouldn't even be science at all.

You are an idiot. Science is basically applied induction. Nothing about philosophy is required to develop a practice of believing that the future will mimic past results, children even learn that.

> zugschef wrote:(you might also want to read the document's title again: "THE REVISED FIELD OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION")

A government document meant to distribute grant money is likely to include things that are not technically sciences in order to distribute grant money to all deserving (and politically powerful but undeserving) areas.

> zugschef wrote:suffice to say, that i think that it's really dangerous to make natural science your religion, by claiming that it has the answer for everything.[/i]

No one is talking about making natural sciences a religion, but by definition anything there is an answer to natural sciences have the answer to.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

zugschef
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 821
  Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by zugschef » Tue May 14, 2013 4:25 pm

> Kaelik wrote:You can analyze anything scientifically, because the human brain and everything derived from it is literally the result of chemistry and physics. But even though you can scientifically analyze the process of the human brain creating art, the actual art does not follow any general laws and provides no knowledge to be tested.

you mean the reason why the golden ratio is aesthetically pleasing, can be explained with chemistry and physics?
Last edited by zugschef on Tue May 14, 2013 4:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue May 14, 2013 4:32 pm

> zugschef wrote:

> > Kaelik wrote:You can analyze anything scientifically, because the human brain and everything derived from it is literally the result of chemistry and physics. But even though you can scientifically analyze the process of the human brain creating art, the actual art does not follow any general laws and provides no knowledge to be tested.

> you mean the reason why the golden ratio is aesthetically pleasing, can be explained with chemistry and physics?

The reason the golden ratio is aesthetically pleasing is because of chemical and physical interactions.
Provided sufficiently advanced technology, it would be discoverable. It is not currently discoverable with modern technology, but that doesn't make it any less the product of chemistry and physics than the Higgs Boson was 30 years ago.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Ancient History
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 12708
  Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Ancient History » Tue May 14, 2013 4:53 pm

> Kaelik wrote:

> > zugschef wrote:no art is not a science. but you can analyze art scientifically. you can analyze literature scientifically.

> You can analyze anything scientifically, because the human brain and everything derived from it is literally the result of chemistry and physics. But even though you can scientifically analyze the process of the human brain creating art, the actual art does not follow any general laws and provides no knowledge to be tested.

I'm not trying to frustrate the debate, but I don't think your statement means quite what you intend - you assume that the brain works on science, and thus science can explain the brain. You're assuming the answer.
Here's the big thing: so far, the scientific method works well. It is a method of setting up assumptions, and then testing them, and then examining the evidence - and it demands that the results be objective and measurable. This allows assertions to be made, challenged, proven or disproven - and new assertions to be made. So ideally, if you follow the scientific method it should be self-correcting, as flawed or false assertions will be disproven. So far, this works out very well and has led to many discoveries and advancements.
It's not the only way of looking at things. Aside from inductive reasoning, there's deductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, defeasible reasoning, probalistic reasoning, statistical reasoning, etc. It's just the one in real-world practical terms that has proven most useful.

> > zugschef wrote:without philosophy there wouldn't even be science at all.

> You are an idiot. Science is basically applied induction. Nothing about philosophy is required to develop a practice of believing that the future will mimic past results, children even learn that.

Historically, zug is correct. Scientific thought took a while to develop and gel into the method we know and love today. Before Chemistry was Alchemy, before Astronomy was Astrology, before Science! was Natural Philosophy.
As far as the future mimicing past results, Kaelik is...part right. Human nature is beneficial (pattern recognition!) and detrimental (gambling!) - our expectations of risk/reward can skew our projections and experience. There is evidemce that people in different cultures and environments do not necessarily develop the same methods of thinking, to the point that inductive reasoning is not everyone's strong suit. There are many people, for example, that have difficulty inferring a general fact from a specific case.
Even science can't prove that science has all the answers. But looking at it so far, science has a far better track record of finding the answers and using them to make cool shit and do things than most anything else people have tried.
Deep Cuts In A Lovecraftian Vein
Top

zugschef
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 821
  Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by zugschef » Tue May 14, 2013 5:01 pm

> Kaelik wrote:The reason the golden ratio is aesthetically pleasing is because of chemical and physical interactions.

is human behavior then completely due to physiology and not due to social patterns? does physiology always determine social patterns?
this is exactly the point where lots of academics clash with each other. and the ones who don't support your position aren't all crazy creationists or similar demagogues.
the discussion is moot anyway. i know that people from either camp won't accept each other, let alone people who intellectually roam midway.
[edit] @Ancient History: thanks.
Last edited by zugschef on Tue May 14, 2013 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Ancient History
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 12708
  Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Ancient History » Tue May 14, 2013 5:14 pm

Don't thank me, I'm mostly with Kaelik on this one.
Deep Cuts In A Lovecraftian Vein
Top

zugschef
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 821
  Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by zugschef » Tue May 14, 2013 5:18 pm

> Ancient History wrote:Don't thank me, I'm mostly with Kaelik on this one.

that's not the point.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue May 14, 2013 5:56 pm

> zugschef wrote:is human behavior then completely due to physiology and not due to social patterns? does physiology always determine social patterns?

All social patterns must develop from physiology. Any given social pattern exists because: 1) the physiological fact that humans accept and propagate that social pattern. 2) the physiological origin of some specific individual creating the pattern.
Again, where they fuck besides physiology do you think social patterns come from? Magic?

> zugschef wrote:this is exactly the point where lots of academics clash with each other. and the ones who don't support your position aren't all crazy creationists or similar demagogues.

The ones who oppose my position are either idiots or haven't thought about the issue. Again, social patterns derive from physiology, and anyone who says they don't is an idiot or hasn't thought about it. Social patterns don't come from souls.
Now, the reasonable thing that academics actually disagree about is the most effective method of studying social patterns, IE, macro versus micro. And that is perfectly valid. Sociology/Psychology/Biology all have their roles in explaining human interactions, and people with more knowledge of one than another are always going to push their area past the point at which another field becomes a better fit because they don't have the expertise to analyze it under that framework.

> zugschef wrote:the discussion is moot anyway. i know that people from either camp won't accept each other, let alone people who intellectually roam midway.

Oh look, another idiot who is wrong and tried to run away from a discussion by saying that not everyone will agree, so there is no point in being right or talking about the issue at all.

> Ancient History wrote:I'm not trying to frustrate the debate, but I don't think your statement means quite what you intend - you assume that the brain works on science, and thus science can explain the brain. You're assuming the answer.

No, I'm not assuming science can explain the brain. I said that the brain is chemical and physical interactions. That is true, everything that occurs is such a reaction. Therefore it can be studied by science, not that it works on science. Science is a method of solving problems or attempting to find out information, the brain doesn't run on a method of solving problems. But it does run 100% on physical and chemical reactions.

> Ancient History wrote:Historically, zug is correct. Scientific thought took a while to develop and gel into the method we know and love today. Before Chemistry was Alchemy, before Astronomy was Astrology, before Science! was Natural Philosophy.

So to be clear, you official position is post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Because that refutes itself. My point is that nothing about science requires one to develop philosophy first, and nothing about the origins of science implies that philosophy helped us develop science earlier than we would have if it had never existed.
Chronological order has nothing to do with my argument. Nothing about Alchemy made Chemistry easier to develop, and if no one had ever developed Alchemy, Chemistry would still be discovered.

> Ancient History wrote:As far as the future mimicing past results, Kaelik is...part right. Human nature is beneficial (pattern recognition!) and detrimental (gambling!) - our expectations of risk/reward can skew our projections and experience. There is evidemce that people in different cultures and environments do not necessarily develop the same methods of thinking, to the point that inductive reasoning is not everyone's strong suit. There are many people, for example, that have difficulty inferring a general fact from a specific case.

Of course there are other methods humans think with. That doesn't mean that one specific method, induction, wouldn't be developed to the extent that it has without philosophy.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Cynic
  Prince
  Posts: 2776
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Cynic » Tue May 14, 2013 6:52 pm

> zugschef wrote:

> > Cynic wrote:But, again, philosophy isn't a science. It isn't magic either. Don't pull hyperbolic arguments to help yourself out, it just makes you look stupid.

> you become magister or doctor philosophae by writing a diploma thesis or a dissertation, respectively. both are by definition scientific pieces of work, no matter what field of study you write one or the other in.

What? No, thesis and dissertation aren't by definition scientific pieces of work
Let's look at the various definitions that the M-W gives you.

Code: Select all

    1 a &#40;1&#41; &#58; the unstressed part of a poetic foot especially in accentual verse &#40;2&#41; &#58; the longer part of a poetic foot especially in quantitative verse
    b &#58; the accented part of a musical measure &#58; downbeat — compare arsis
    2a &#58; a position or proposition that a person &#40;as a candidate for scholastic honors&#41; advances and offers to maintain by argument
    b &#58; a proposition to be proved or one advanced without proof &#58; hypothesis
    3&#58; the first and least adequate stage of dialectic — compare synthesis
    4&#58; a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view; especially &#58; one written by a candidate for an academic degree

See, we'll ignore definition 1. Definition 2 talks about just the maintenance of a proposition by argument. Definition 3 is pretty similar. Definition 4 is also similar.
Can any of these be used for one of the natural sciences? Why, yes!
Does this mean that "proving that the beauty of art is subjective using quotes from "Ode to a grecian Urn" and calling Marcel Duchamp's use of a public urinal as an exhibition of the variability of what is the definition of beauty/aesthetic" is science then no.
Also can someone explain why Germans apparently hold degrees in high regard or where this comes from? I've never heard that before.

> Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.

Top

Ancient History
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 12708
  Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Ancient History » Tue May 14, 2013 6:54 pm

> Kaelik wrote:

> > Ancient History wrote:Historically, zug is correct. Scientific thought took a while to develop and gel into the method we know and love today. Before Chemistry was Alchemy, before Astronomy was Astrology, before Science! was Natural Philosophy.

> So to be clear, you official position is post hoc ergo propter hoc?
> Because that refutes itself. My point is that nothing about science requires one to develop philosophy first, and nothing about the origins of science implies that philosophy helped us develop science earlier than we would have if it had never existed.

The point you are trying to make is that the findings of science are objective truths, and that they will continue to remain true whatever your subjective beliefs or knowledge of them are. That is mostly accurate: natural phenomenon works whether or not we understand it to work, and science has proved a very good methodology to study and understand those processes. However, scientific thought (as opposed to objective facts) did not happen spontaneously, it had to be developed or discovered over time - and in the case of the human species, it derived itself from philosophy.
Now, maybe the chirpoteran species that takes over the Earth when humanity is cleared off will just start out with science right away and not muck with this whole philosophy business, but from a historical viewpoint, science came later.

> Chronological order has nothing to do with my argument. Nothing about Alchemy made Chemistry easier to develop, and if no one had ever developed Alchemy, Chemistry would still be discovered.

Well, no. Chemistry could still be discovered, but there is no reason to believe that it would be discovered. The potential is there, but not the certainty.

> That doesn't mean that one specific method, induction, wouldn't be developed to the extent that it has without philosophy.

And we get to the point! Yes, you're right, you don't necessarily need philosophy to develop inductive reasoning. But on Earth, in our species, it did. You could even argue that you probably did need some people who sat around and philosophized to get at the metaconcept that is deductive reasoning, because that is not an objective and empirical thing, it's a name we tagged on a certain method of reasoning because philosophers sat around thinking about it.
Deep Cuts In A Lovecraftian Vein
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue May 14, 2013 7:37 pm

> Ancient History wrote:The point you are trying to make is that the findings of science are objective truths, and that they will continue to remain true whatever your subjective beliefs or knowledge of them are. That is mostly accurate: natural phenomenon works whether or not we understand it to work, and science has proved a very good methodology to study and understand those processes. However, scientific thought (as opposed to objective facts) did not happen spontaneously, it had to be developed or discovered over time

Read this again. You are saying:
You said X. That is partly true. X is completely true. But Y is not true. Therefore... shut up.
I didn't say Y, so I don't care if Y is true.

> Ancient History wrote:and in the case of the human species, it derived itself from philosophy.

No it didn't. In the case of the human species, science did not derive itself from philosophy.

> Ancient History wrote:but from a historical viewpoint, science came later.

Which doesn't mean it came from Philosophy.

> Ancient History wrote:Well, no. Chemistry could still be discovered, but there is no reason to believe that it would be discovered. The potential is there, but not the certainty.

Oh don't be a shithead. It is theoretically possible that the human race could have become extinct on some random day from a Meteor, but that doesn't matter. The point is that humans inherently understand the concept of induction, and will just goddam act on it, and eventually in organized society they will apply induction in more rigorous ways, even if they never develop philosophy.

> Yes, you're right, you don't necessarily need philosophy to develop inductive reasoning. But on Earth, in our species, it did.

Great, now that we have agreed I am 100% right, you can stop telling me that I am wrong, and claiming that anything that preceded something must be necessary to its existence right?
Because this thing where you tell me that the discovery of Atoms literally could not have occurred without Alexander the Great conquering Persia because one of them came first is completely full of shit and needs to stop.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Ancient History
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 12708
  Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Ancient History » Tue May 14, 2013 7:50 pm

Look, there was a point in time where science was all about the aether and phlogiston. My point is simply you shouldn't confuse the findings of science with the method of science. That is a critical error.
And yes, science did arise from philosophy. Look, almighty and all-knowing Wikipedia says so!
Deep Cuts In A Lovecraftian Vein
Top

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Maj » Tue May 14, 2013 7:51 pm

My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue May 14, 2013 8:00 pm

> Ancient History wrote:Look, there was a point in time where science was all about the aether and phlogiston. My point is simply you shouldn't confuse the findings of science with the method of science. That is a critical error.

Great, good for you. Now go sit in time out retarded monkey shit, because you spent every single post accusing me of making this critical error because you are too stupid to read what I fucking said.
And you are still continuing to say that your point is that I shouldn't do X, when I never did X. So again:
Hey Ancient History, stop killing Jews. My Point is that you should stop killing Jews.

> Ancient History wrote:And yes, science did arise from philosophy. Look, almighty and all-knowing Wikipedia says so!

Once again, no, that is not what we are talking about. The fact that people who studied philosophy also studied natural science at some point in time does not mean that science derived from philosophy. Just like the fact that farmers invented the Egyptian language does not mean that the Egyptian language derived from farming.
Last edited by Kaelik on Tue May 14, 2013 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Ancient History
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 12708
  Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Ancient History » Tue May 14, 2013 8:02 pm

Parts of the Egyptian language did derive from farming, you moron. Why do you think they had words for all that farming nonsense?
Deep Cuts In A Lovecraftian Vein
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue May 14, 2013 8:06 pm

> Ancient History wrote:Parts of the Egyptian language did derive from farming, you moron. Why do you think they had words for all that farming nonsense?

Okay monkey fuck retard, are you now telling me the English Language is derived from Chinese because it has a word for Chinese.
Having words to describe something does not mean it is derived from it.
Godfuck you want to have sex with chronological order, I had no idea your name was derived from your fervent desire to argue for the proposition that any and every time X precedes Y X caused Y.
Last edited by Kaelik on Tue May 14, 2013 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

zugschef
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 821
  Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by zugschef » Tue May 14, 2013 8:26 pm

if a bunch of farmers invent a language it's gonna be different than the language invented by a bunch of hunters. and a lot of it will have to do with them being farmers and hunters respectively.
Top

Shrapnel
  Prince
  Posts: 3146
  Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:14 pm
  Location: Burgess Shale, 500 MYA
  Contact:
  Contact Shrapnel
  Website

###

- Quote

Post by Shrapnel » Tue May 14, 2013 8:42 pm

It's fun to watch Kaelik argue, I must say.
Is this wretched demi-bee
Half asleep upon my knee
Some freak from a menagerie?
No! It's Eric, the half a bee
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue May 14, 2013 8:55 pm

> zugschef wrote:if a bunch of farmers invent a language it's gonna be different than the language invented by a bunch of hunters. and a lot of it will have to do with them being farmers and hunters respectively.

And from this it follows that language is derived from farming, and not from human minds that would have developed it without farming, art is a science, and that social patterns are derived from souls.
Have you answered a single fucking question that anyone has asked you yet?

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

zugschef
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 821
  Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by zugschef » Tue May 14, 2013 9:29 pm

> Kaelik wrote:

> > zugschef wrote:if a bunch of farmers invent a language it's gonna be different than the language invented by a bunch of hunters. and a lot of it will have to do with them being farmers and hunters respectively.

> And from this it follows that language is derived from farming, and not from human minds that would have developed it without farming, art is a science, and that social patterns are derived from souls.
> Have you answered a single fucking question that anyone has asked you yet?

you mean humans would have developed a complex language if they had never developed farming?
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue May 14, 2013 9:32 pm

> zugschef wrote:

> > Kaelik wrote:

> > > zugschef wrote:if a bunch of farmers invent a language it's gonna be different than the language invented by a bunch of hunters. and a lot of it will have to do with them being farmers and hunters respectively.

> > And from this it follows that language is derived from farming, and not from human minds that would have developed it without farming, art is a science, and that social patterns are derived from souls.
> > Have you answered a single fucking question that anyone has asked you yet?

> you mean humans would have developed a complex language if they had never developed farming?

So, 1) Yes. I mean that.
2) So the answer to my question is no, you have never answered a question in your life.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

fbmf
  The Great Fence Builder
  Posts: 2588
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by fbmf » Tue May 14, 2013 10:00 pm

> Shrapnel wrote:It's fun to watch Kaelik argue, I must say.

It's like passive trolling in a way. He gets so butt hurt over the most trivial things.
Game On,
fbmf
Top

Winnah
  Duke
  Posts: 1091
  Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:00 pm
  Location: Oz

###

- Quote

Post by Winnah » Tue May 14, 2013 10:03 pm

Culture is an integrated system of learned behavior patterns, which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance.
Language is the primary vehicle for social interaction and social interaction is in turn the primary vehicle in which the major interactions of a society are implemented.
The practices of a society will influence language. More specifically, the practices of a culture will motivate members of that society to modify language to better facilitate interaction.
Top

Foxwarrior
  Duke
  Posts: 1614
  Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
  Location: RPG City, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Foxwarrior » Tue May 14, 2013 10:06 pm

> zugschef wrote:you mean humans would have developed a complex language if they had never developed farming?

I really hope, for the sake of your honor, that you have at the very least some examples of modern (less than 5000 years old) hunter-gatherer societies with simple languages.
Top

zugschef
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 821
  Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by zugschef » Tue May 14, 2013 10:22 pm

> Foxwarrior wrote:

> > zugschef wrote:you mean humans would have developed a complex language if they had never developed farming?

> I really hope, for the sake of your honor, that you have at the very least some examples of modern (less than 5000 years old) hunter-gatherer societies with simple languages.

the talk was about the egyptian language. i don't know of any hunter-gatherer societies who developed a writing system on their own. it is no coincidence that the sumerians and agyptians were the first to develop a writing system. the higher complexity of their daily routines and logistics demanded a more complex language, which in return was also the basis for a complex infrastructure.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

3482 posts

- Page 54 of 140
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- …
- 140
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS