Perhaps people may see that our consciousness and sense of 'self' is not within the brain. It will raise some interesting questions. If the self isn't within the liver... or the heart... or the brain... perhaps, if it is not even within the body... then where is it?
In Hebrew the word is 'partzuf' which means face, as in 'countenance'. You will find most reasonable texts (here is an example) translate this as 'configuration'. You're right though, it would be a big mistake to interpret them as physics. I was merely making an observation:)
Kabbalah refers to these two alternating properties of light as "direct light" and "returning light". Light alternates between these two opposing, yet mutually complementary characteristics as it is either reflected or absorbed by the observer (depending on the current configuration of the observer).
In regards to emotions and the more intangible aspects of a human being, the only replicable way of controlling them is through mimicry. It certainly is not inner happiness. However, by immersing ourselves in a certain environment we invariably attain homeostasis with it.
Like a young child playing with a plastic hammer to imitate his dad, he doesn't really know what he is doing, or the meaning of it. But in time he will grow to ably tackle the task on his own. The quality of happiness, or sadness, or whatever, works in the same way - it may start off a misguided, fake, and poor attempt, but will eventually grow to walk on its own feet.
I find these stories kind of unfulfilling. No matter how far we get back in nature's cause and effect, I'm still left thinking 'what came before that'. When scientists finally discover the root of all creation, I'll still be thinking the same thing.
Mark my words... in 2050, when we have neural interfaces, slashdot will be having the EXACT same discussion. In 2550, we won't. Why? Because our neural interfaces, after being so well developed, will bring us to the conclusion that we all have exactly the same opinion, we just use different words.
It's always good to see the human brain controlling our possessions, rather than the other way around. I look forward to the day when people are connected to other people in this same capacity.
I agree that I don't understand the concept of mutual benefit, but all the same, would you say that there is no limit on the mutual benefit that all parties can receive? I have found that there is a limit to the perceived benefit in any collective, which undoubtedly is the beginning of the end for it. You're right, it's not shameful or wrong, but I would still like a proven method to make these things last.
Slashdot Mirror
Snakes and whales had legs once?
Could be rebooted more in the vein of an RPG a la Heroes of Might and Magic. Would probably solve the interface issues as well.
Absolutely.
Poisoning the well. What an insightful revelation. Surely it's never been done before, maybe they should throw a patent on it.
more than I trust the current set of telecommunications companies.
Perhaps people may see that our consciousness and sense of 'self' is not within the brain. It will raise some interesting questions. If the self isn't within the liver... or the heart... or the brain... perhaps, if it is not even within the body... then where is it?
I lol'd.
There's a reason why most online dating profiles are so incredibly generic.
Most people are?
A co-conspirator is almost as redundant as a co-ward.
In Hebrew the word is 'partzuf' which means face, as in 'countenance'. You will find most reasonable texts (here is an example) translate this as 'configuration'. You're right though, it would be a big mistake to interpret them as physics. I was merely making an observation :)
Why bother trying to identify the source of a force? It only leads to deeper, more confusing questions.
Kabbalah refers to these two alternating properties of light as "direct light" and "returning light". Light alternates between these two opposing, yet mutually complementary characteristics as it is either reflected or absorbed by the observer (depending on the current configuration of the observer).
Any sufficiently advanced scam is indistinguishable from business.
ITT: People who will always be poor.
There is a time for everything in nature, young anon.
Yet another "M$ is an innovator" myth. Before MS-DOS,there was the Commodore VIC-20, C-64, and Amiga.
Didn't Microsoft create the BASIC for Commodore VIC-20 and C-64?
Wish I had mod points. +5 Punny
In regards to emotions and the more intangible aspects of a human being, the only replicable way of controlling them is through mimicry. It certainly is not inner happiness. However, by immersing ourselves in a certain environment we invariably attain homeostasis with it.
Like a young child playing with a plastic hammer to imitate his dad, he doesn't really know what he is doing, or the meaning of it. But in time he will grow to ably tackle the task on his own. The quality of happiness, or sadness, or whatever, works in the same way - it may start off a misguided, fake, and poor attempt, but will eventually grow to walk on its own feet.
Those 'happiness studies' that say a person gets happier by smiling fail to account for those that truly enjoy being miserable.
I find these stories kind of unfulfilling. No matter how far we get back in nature's cause and effect, I'm still left thinking 'what came before that'. When scientists finally discover the root of all creation, I'll still be thinking the same thing.
Sure, there are rouge servers
Red servers, eh.
WHEN YOU CONNECT TO AN UNLICENSED SC2 SERVER, YOU'RE CONNECTING TO COMMUNISM!
Mark my words... in 2050, when we have neural interfaces, slashdot will be having the EXACT same discussion. In 2550, we won't. Why? Because our neural interfaces, after being so well developed, will bring us to the conclusion that we all have exactly the same opinion, we just use different words.
It's always good to see the human brain controlling our possessions, rather than the other way around. I look forward to the day when people are connected to other people in this same capacity.
When you're trying to divide and conquer, any communication is scary.
Great reply, anon.
I agree that I don't understand the concept of mutual benefit, but all the same, would you say that there is no limit on the mutual benefit that all parties can receive? I have found that there is a limit to the perceived benefit in any collective, which undoubtedly is the beginning of the end for it. You're right, it's not shameful or wrong, but I would still like a proven method to make these things last.
You are completely correct. And help is already being sought...