Of course curiosity can be programmed. What are humans if not big, fleshy, biological machines of sorts? Granted we do not work like computers do, but the underlying processes are still structured and computational--if the brain were chaotic it wouldn't work.
Of course, some people will handwave with "the soul" or silly objections by Searle...
Agreed. Liberals pretend they care about the poor while walking past beggars on the street without even making eye contact and consider themselves compassionate when they later complain that someone in a higher tax bracket should take care of him, while the beggar on the street is probably actually just a libertarian passed out on drugs.
The conservatives are like liberals except they don't do any pretending about caring about the poor.
Not for my entire life, mind you, but I'm far from mindless for not wanting a family! That's like spitting in the face of the American Dream--not splurting out yet another future taxpayer or consumer, gathering my own wealth, whilst disregarding females:P
Who the fuck do you think hates wikileaks the most? The fucking government. People, quit relying on your goddamn governments to save the world and realize they are run by men, not angels.
Try unionization, or maybe educate employees. Government regulation would hurt people like me with no family or social life that wouldn't mind long crunch periods. There is no one-size-fits-all style to life and freedom, despite what the populists tell you, is not designing all life to the lowest-common-denominator.
'course many unions are just as corrupt and faceless as any government, and reward seniority over anything else.
Mod this up--I'm no way involved in even a related field of work, but this is pretty close to the reality of how corporations run.
I'm sick of the "CEOs are evil sociopaths" mentality simply because it implies that the rich are some evil exploitative faction of society while everyone else are halo-wearing do-gooders. Everyone is the same, and often the greatest evil is really just assholes in middle-management. My point here is that malice is far less common than simple incompetence.
The only way to fix this is for employees to work together. Unionize? Maybe, maybe not, but in any business the lowest common denominator can affect business if they work together.
So people aren't allowed to try to legally protect their own economic interests? Google shouldn't be able to, say, fight a pending law that would (in a ridiculous dystopian future) prevent it from having to hand over user information to the government?
I'm not "conservative" at all (ooo bogeyman word! There's a "conservative" under your bed, kiddies!) and believe in far more radical change than either parties do.
If big interests are "buying off" politicians (that is not the issue that even came before the Supreme Court, read the article!) then perhaps voters are electing the wrong one. But of course, voters don't want to take any responsibility themselves.
Or maybe Obama was able to receive more funds BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY MORE POPULAR.
Obama had an image about him--an image that was and is totally false--that he was "different" and that he is intelligent (that he is). Obama is establishment through-and-through, but the Obama mythos that existed prior is what got him elected.
That money didn't come from nowhere.
Also,
Because Republicans were able to completely drown out his opponent. In this case, they were helped by the fact that Democrats basically didn't bother trying to campaign at all, but the bottom line is that those spending the most money completely controlled the discussion.
And then you turn around and conclude it was just money...?
Regardless of who raises more money, it's the voters that are responsible in the end, and if the voters are so easily influenced then they are merely getting the government they deserve!
Do note my question was rhetorical--the answer is obvious, and yet the answer to that question is a pretty harsh blow to the premises democracies operate under.
No, it means democracy, under the premise that voters are rational enough to make informed decisions, simply cannot work ideally. You can't "tweak" it so it does, and by doing so, by trying to alter what the public sees and hears, you are promoting a particular agenda anyway.
I'd be tempted to agree with you, but other types of groups receive special protections and statuses as well. Charities and non-profits also get tax exemptions and I argue they, too should also be allowed to speak on political matters--I'll be frank and straight up say I hate religion, but preventing churches from supporting political candidates is pretty abhorrent. Non-profits also must remain nonpolitical, even though a particular politician's agenda may be exactly what the group is fighting for. Sure, they can support the issue, but since politics are so polarized it's not like it's functionally that different anyways--and, again, churches and non-profits don't vote, either, individuals do.
Depends on the size of the soapbox. I can blast an email out to all my friends saying "Candidate A rocks because of Issues 1, 2, and 3." They forward to theirs, and so on. Cost? A few minutes per person. Or instead of email they talk about it at the coffee shop, or whatever. Not very affective against the current climate of expensive, flashy, carpet-bombed TV/Radio/Internet ads - but in my little utopian daydream, those ads don't exist.;)
Again, you take money out of politics, what really happens is those with media pull get attention and everyone else is ignored. Again, Ron Paul (love him, hate him, don't care about him) only got as far as he did because of money--he was ignored by the media, and he truly was as grassroots as they come on the national level, because his own party was sandbagging him.
Slashdot Mirror
P-zombies are a ridiculous construct.
Yeah, but your talk of "Ego" and "the soul" is all gobbledygook.
Of course curiosity can be programmed. What are humans if not big, fleshy, biological machines of sorts? Granted we do not work like computers do, but the underlying processes are still structured and computational--if the brain were chaotic it wouldn't work.
Of course, some people will handwave with "the soul" or silly objections by Searle...
cool story bro
Shakrai, note that the guy you are responding to is on his high horse after posting a libertarian stereotype.
That sounds way more like your average Ivy League liberal.
How the hell do you go from "redneck" to "university brat?" Two groups with almost no overlap.
Agreed. Liberals pretend they care about the poor while walking past beggars on the street without even making eye contact and consider themselves compassionate when they later complain that someone in a higher tax bracket should take care of him, while the beggar on the street is probably actually just a libertarian passed out on drugs.
The conservatives are like liberals except they don't do any pretending about caring about the poor.
-Plenty of people-, and by free market I DO mean something other than the generic term thrown around.
Not for my entire life, mind you, but I'm far from mindless for not wanting a family! That's like spitting in the face of the American Dream--not splurting out yet another future taxpayer or consumer, gathering my own wealth, whilst disregarding females :P
I'm a complete free marketer and I agree 100%. There's nothing free market about special corporate legal protections.
Who the fuck do you think hates wikileaks the most? The fucking government. People, quit relying on your goddamn governments to save the world and realize they are run by men, not angels.
Maybe because the opportunity is the best thing they have at that moment of their lives, particularly in a rotten economy?
Try unionization, or maybe educate employees. Government regulation would hurt people like me with no family or social life that wouldn't mind long crunch periods. There is no one-size-fits-all style to life and freedom, despite what the populists tell you, is not designing all life to the lowest-common-denominator.
'course many unions are just as corrupt and faceless as any government, and reward seniority over anything else.
Mod this up--I'm no way involved in even a related field of work, but this is pretty close to the reality of how corporations run.
I'm sick of the "CEOs are evil sociopaths" mentality simply because it implies that the rich are some evil exploitative faction of society while everyone else are halo-wearing do-gooders. Everyone is the same, and often the greatest evil is really just assholes in middle-management. My point here is that malice is far less common than simple incompetence.
The only way to fix this is for employees to work together. Unionize? Maybe, maybe not, but in any business the lowest common denominator can affect business if they work together.
And people like you are educated enough to eat it up.
So people aren't allowed to try to legally protect their own economic interests? Google shouldn't be able to, say, fight a pending law that would (in a ridiculous dystopian future) prevent it from having to hand over user information to the government?
So, for example, if you restrict "information flow" from black people, you're not promoting or aiding any agendas...?
I'm not "conservative" at all (ooo bogeyman word! There's a "conservative" under your bed, kiddies!) and believe in far more radical change than either parties do.
If big interests are "buying off" politicians (that is not the issue that even came before the Supreme Court, read the article!) then perhaps voters are electing the wrong one. But of course, voters don't want to take any responsibility themselves.
Or maybe Obama was able to receive more funds BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY MORE POPULAR.
Obama had an image about him--an image that was and is totally false--that he was "different" and that he is intelligent (that he is). Obama is establishment through-and-through, but the Obama mythos that existed prior is what got him elected.
That money didn't come from nowhere.
Also,
And then you turn around and conclude it was just money...?
Regardless of who raises more money, it's the voters that are responsible in the end, and if the voters are so easily influenced then they are merely getting the government they deserve!
Heh.
Do note my question was rhetorical--the answer is obvious, and yet the answer to that question is a pretty harsh blow to the premises democracies operate under.
No, it means democracy, under the premise that voters are rational enough to make informed decisions, simply cannot work ideally. You can't "tweak" it so it does, and by doing so, by trying to alter what the public sees and hears, you are promoting a particular agenda anyway.
Because it is composed of entities whom can. You want to take away free speech from the EFF, churches, political parties, etc?
I'd be tempted to agree with you, but other types of groups receive special protections and statuses as well. Charities and non-profits also get tax exemptions and I argue they, too should also be allowed to speak on political matters--I'll be frank and straight up say I hate religion, but preventing churches from supporting political candidates is pretty abhorrent. Non-profits also must remain nonpolitical, even though a particular politician's agenda may be exactly what the group is fighting for. Sure, they can support the issue, but since politics are so polarized it's not like it's functionally that different anyways--and, again, churches and non-profits don't vote, either, individuals do.
Then step #1 isn't to implement silly kludges of questionable value. It's to get rid of the special corporate protections in the first place.
Again, you take money out of politics, what really happens is those with media pull get attention and everyone else is ignored. Again, Ron Paul (love him, hate him, don't care about him) only got as far as he did because of money--he was ignored by the media, and he truly was as grassroots as they come on the national level, because his own party was sandbagging him.