That's because the Rorschach isn't valid for inferring personality or other psychological states. That's debatable. Not that I'm saying the test is any good, just that the issue isn't settled, while you present it as a known fact based on a single study.
Also of Buddhism, another philosophical system that has been very corruption resistant. Which reminds me of a joke. A Buddhist monk goes to a hot dog vendor and says, "Make me one with everything." The vendor says, "That'll be two fifty," so the monk hands him a five. The vendor gives him his dog, but no change. The monk says, "Where's my change?" And the vendor replies, "Change comes from within."
You seem to have a rather low opinion of human nature. I'm just guessing, but would you say that some of your political beliefs stem from being hurt? I won't blame you or think less of you if it's true. Recent economic research seems to show that you are wrong. Take a look at the concept of Inequity Aversion. Most people are averse to inequity, and will incur financial harm to ensure it does not happen to others. Most people resort to selfishness when the system they are in rewards it and does not provide mechanisms for punishing non-cooperation. I say "most" because there are the sociopaths out there who have no aversion to inequity and no sense of empathy.
You may want to take a gander at James Demeo's Saharasia, a book that purports to show the true origins of human violence. The web site has a very good overview of the theory, so you don't need to buy the book. It was recommended to my by Robert Anton Wilson. James was a student of Wilhelm Reich. Conspiracy theory goldmine, right there.
True seekers need to be able to look at themselves without judgment. It sounds like you agree. I've found The Four Agreements to be a helpful. I've met Miguel and he comes across as sincere, even if some of his publicity comes across as, "Buy my book! Buy, buy buy!" Basically the four agreements are: 1. Be impeccable with your word. Don't misrepresent, and don't use your words to hurt yourself or others. 2. Don't take anything personally. Nothing is about you. People act the way they do for internal reasons. 3. Never make assumptions. Don't be afraid to ask for help, but be okay with, "No." Don't assume you know what others think or feel. 4. Always do your best. Rather, know that you are always doing your best, but 'best' will vary from moment to moment.
Anyway, I've got a SUSE install going for our new Sybase-on-Linux testbed, and it's bleating for attention. I think that's enough of a brain dump for one post anyhow.
One idea I have had on the education front is to get school governments, frats, clubs, and the like to use these different methods in their elections so that people can get familiar and comfortable with them. I think that's an excellent idea. Just getting the word out that there are other valid systems besides the hackneyed kludge we use (Electoral college, wtf?!?) is a good thing. I love to talk about Condorcet, "What if I told you there was a system where you could vote for your candidates by ranked preference, so if the guy you really like doesn't win your vote still counts towards your next favorite?" It's a bit of a simplification, but people get it, and universally, they like the idea.
Get rid of winner take all elections, they favor incumbents and a two party system. Use proportional representation. Or at the very least, use Condorcet voting. As to how we do either of those things when the entrenched power structure has no interest in changing the system that keeps them in power, I don't know. Education?
So too with your post, what does this say about the quality of his opposition in the two elections? That Bush's opposition in the last two elections sucked hairy sweaty donkey balls? Don't blame me, I wrote in Kucinich.
Except the Constitution has always had copper plating to keep the barnacles off. How about we use the Vasa? It might not be floating anymore, or covered in barnacles, but it gives off hundreds of kilograms of sulfuric acid every year. We could even give him goggles to protect his eyes...
That's a totally false analogy. The simulation of the atomic blast is not set up to interact with the real world. A simulation of a human mind would have to be. In fact it would have to be set up to interact in all the ways a human mind could, too be accurate. A mind's purpose is to interact with the world. With an atomic bomb simulation there is no feedback loop between sim and world. With an AI, there would have to be.
The thing is, the questions we are asking are not only unanswered, I think they are unanswerable. But they are endlessly debated. The point is, the question doesn't just apply to simulations. There is no way for me to know if you even have internal qualia, or if you are a blank simulation lacking all internal awareness and experience. The question is moot until we have the technology to transfer our brains to a simulation, then people will really want to know if the simulation of them will have experiences or will merely says it that does.
For a very, very good Sci Fi read on the subject, I highly recommend Greg Egan's Permutation City. It will blow your mind.
Ah, but if the simulation were accurate enough, would the internal qualia of the being so simulated be different from ours? How would we know? More importantly, how would it? If the physics of our world create the qualia of experience, then I think an accurate simulation would give rise to the same qualia.
You got me, I was expecting to get modded troll. I'm seriously disappointed in the moderators. I got modded troll for a funny quip against an AC, and this gets modded insightful? People must really be pissed at Bush. I was just yanking the second guy's chain, because the first guy wasn't really making a point about Bush at all and guy the second jumps in with his whiney "why must everyone bash Bush?" And it wasn't even Bush bashing! So I gave him some.
Why does everything need to be hate-bush-speak? Because there is so much to hate? He is the worst president, ever. Bar none. Most of the country feels that way. There have been no repercussions for his crimes. We still talk about it because we're still angry that nothing has been done. Clinton gets impeached for lying about a blow job, Bush lies about everything and gets away scott free.
And it's not just his job as president I despise, oh no. I despise every single thing about the man. He has no positive qualities whatsoever. He's a lousy business man, a lousy husband, a lousy father, a coke snorting, frat-bastard, drunk driving, spoiled, over privileged, draft dodging coward. The man isn't fit to clean my toilets, let alone run the most powerful country on earth.
Well, now they are small, inexpensive, and relatively reliable. But at least they still sometimes catch on fire. That's exactly what I tell my computers when they act up, "Computers still sometimes catch on fire, you know." I keep a charred motherboard hanging on the wall in the server room, just to remind them. Helps keep the buggers running right.
A computer is Turing complete. An abacus is not. Any problem that one Turing complete computational device can solve, any other can solve as well. Are you suggesting that the brain computes in a way that overturns sixty years of computability and information theory? Anything is possible, I suppose, but a premise like that needs more support than just, "Well that's what I think."
Well we agree on the basics, I suppose. In fact, now I'm not sure what we disagree on. What qualitative differences do you see between a computer and a brain that would keep a computer from thinking?
Yes, it is, and there are plenty of studies that don't just suggest that, they flat out state it. In fact, there are no studies that refute that staement, and I challenge you to find even one peer reviewed study that shows evidence that the brain is nondeterministic. There are no structures in the brain small enough for quantum effects to matter. The brain is deterministic. Sorry if that contradicts any dumb ideas you might have had about free will or a soul, but the universe doesn't care about your hurt feelings.
You expect me to respect you more for signing up to go invade a foreign country and kill people who never did anything to us? Tool. I've talked with plenty of protesters, and the most retarded activist out there is a damn site smarter than you. You aren't doing anything to change the world or make it a better place. Your morals are out of whack, and the things you think you're doing for the greater good are making us more enemies, not making us more secure. You aren't keeping us free, you are fighting for masters who would make us slaves. Congratulations, you've made the world a more dangerous place through your actions. People who sit on their fat asses are better than you, at least they aren't making the world worse. But oh, I'm sure every single one of the people you've killed was a bad guy. Have fun sleeping with your guilt and nightmares for the rest of your life.
Idiot. What makes you think scientists were behind this? Reporters were behind this. They have monetary reasons for scaremongering. What hidden agendas can you even think up that might prompt scientists to falsify results?
One sure sign of a crackpot is that he takes every chance he can get to insult and demean the scientific establishment. That shit won't fly here. It does not make you seem smart or wise in anyone's eyes. It just points out to all the smart folks here that you are an anti-intellectual dolt.
This is what anarchism is about. You and I may differ on certain things, but we agree on the basics. The Tao Te Ching, written by Lao Tzu, arguably one of the world's first anarchists, has some interesting quotes on leadership:
When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised.
If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn't talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!" and:
The best athlete wants his opponent at his best. The best general enters the mind of his enemy. The best businessman serves the communal good. The best leader follows the will of the people.
All of the embody the virtue of non-competition. Not that they don't love to compete, but they do it in the spirit of play. In this they are like children and in harmony with the Tao. And my favorite, one of the most succinct statements on the theory of anarchism I've ever read:
If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't we just license his own goggles back to him? After all, his goggle infringe on our IP. No, we don't have to show you how, just trust us.
I love you old school conservatives. Where'd you all go? I'm a social anarchist myself, but I respect your stance.
They moved it to cover up the obelisk!
Graphic fucking? Is that what you saw in that inkblot? You've got a dirty mind!
It's not THAT unsafe. It shows cartoon breasts. Anyway, sorry if I got anyone fired.
For those who haven't seen it, Perry Bible Fellowship's take on this.
Also of Buddhism, another philosophical system that has been very corruption resistant. Which reminds me of a joke. A Buddhist monk goes to a hot dog vendor and says, "Make me one with everything." The vendor says, "That'll be two fifty," so the monk hands him a five. The vendor gives him his dog, but no change. The monk says, "Where's my change?" And the vendor replies, "Change comes from within."
You seem to have a rather low opinion of human nature. I'm just guessing, but would you say that some of your political beliefs stem from being hurt? I won't blame you or think less of you if it's true. Recent economic research seems to show that you are wrong. Take a look at the concept of Inequity Aversion. Most people are averse to inequity, and will incur financial harm to ensure it does not happen to others. Most people resort to selfishness when the system they are in rewards it and does not provide mechanisms for punishing non-cooperation. I say "most" because there are the sociopaths out there who have no aversion to inequity and no sense of empathy.
You may want to take a gander at James Demeo's Saharasia , a book that purports to show the true origins of human violence. The web site has a very good overview of the theory, so you don't need to buy the book. It was recommended to my by Robert Anton Wilson. James was a student of Wilhelm Reich. Conspiracy theory goldmine, right there.
True seekers need to be able to look at themselves without judgment. It sounds like you agree. I've found The Four Agreements to be a helpful. I've met Miguel and he comes across as sincere, even if some of his publicity comes across as, "Buy my book! Buy, buy buy!" Basically the four agreements are:
1. Be impeccable with your word. Don't misrepresent, and don't use your words to hurt yourself or others.
2. Don't take anything personally. Nothing is about you. People act the way they do for internal reasons.
3. Never make assumptions. Don't be afraid to ask for help, but be okay with, "No." Don't assume you know what others think or feel.
4. Always do your best. Rather, know that you are always doing your best, but 'best' will vary from moment to moment.
Anyway, I've got a SUSE install going for our new Sybase-on-Linux testbed, and it's bleating for attention. I think that's enough of a brain dump for one post anyhow.
Get rid of winner take all elections, they favor incumbents and a two party system. Use proportional representation. Or at the very least, use Condorcet voting. As to how we do either of those things when the entrenched power structure has no interest in changing the system that keeps them in power, I don't know. Education?
Except the Constitution has always had copper plating to keep the barnacles off. How about we use the Vasa ? It might not be floating anymore, or covered in barnacles, but it gives off hundreds of kilograms of sulfuric acid every year. We could even give him goggles to protect his eyes...
That's a totally false analogy. The simulation of the atomic blast is not set up to interact with the real world. A simulation of a human mind would have to be. In fact it would have to be set up to interact in all the ways a human mind could, too be accurate. A mind's purpose is to interact with the world. With an atomic bomb simulation there is no feedback loop between sim and world. With an AI, there would have to be.
The thing is, the questions we are asking are not only unanswered, I think they are unanswerable. But they are endlessly debated. The point is, the question doesn't just apply to simulations. There is no way for me to know if you even have internal qualia, or if you are a blank simulation lacking all internal awareness and experience. The question is moot until we have the technology to transfer our brains to a simulation, then people will really want to know if the simulation of them will have experiences or will merely says it that does.
For a very, very good Sci Fi read on the subject, I highly recommend Greg Egan's Permutation City. It will blow your mind.
Ah, but if the simulation were accurate enough, would the internal qualia of the being so simulated be different from ours? How would we know? More importantly, how would it? If the physics of our world create the qualia of experience, then I think an accurate simulation would give rise to the same qualia.
You got me, I was expecting to get modded troll. I'm seriously disappointed in the moderators. I got modded troll for a funny quip against an AC, and this gets modded insightful? People must really be pissed at Bush. I was just yanking the second guy's chain, because the first guy wasn't really making a point about Bush at all and guy the second jumps in with his whiney "why must everyone bash Bush?" And it wasn't even Bush bashing! So I gave him some.
And it's not just his job as president I despise, oh no. I despise every single thing about the man. He has no positive qualities whatsoever. He's a lousy business man, a lousy husband, a lousy father, a coke snorting, frat-bastard, drunk driving, spoiled, over privileged, draft dodging coward. The man isn't fit to clean my toilets, let alone run the most powerful country on earth.
Then thanks for the compliment.
Are you still bitter about being a virgin?
A computer is Turing complete. An abacus is not. Any problem that one Turing complete computational device can solve, any other can solve as well. Are you suggesting that the brain computes in a way that overturns sixty years of computability and information theory? Anything is possible, I suppose, but a premise like that needs more support than just, "Well that's what I think."
Well we agree on the basics, I suppose. In fact, now I'm not sure what we disagree on. What qualitative differences do you see between a computer and a brain that would keep a computer from thinking?
Yes, it is, and there are plenty of studies that don't just suggest that, they flat out state it. In fact, there are no studies that refute that staement, and I challenge you to find even one peer reviewed study that shows evidence that the brain is nondeterministic. There are no structures in the brain small enough for quantum effects to matter. The brain is deterministic. Sorry if that contradicts any dumb ideas you might have had about free will or a soul, but the universe doesn't care about your hurt feelings.
You expect me to respect you more for signing up to go invade a foreign country and kill people who never did anything to us? Tool. I've talked with plenty of protesters, and the most retarded activist out there is a damn site smarter than you. You aren't doing anything to change the world or make it a better place. Your morals are out of whack, and the things you think you're doing for the greater good are making us more enemies, not making us more secure. You aren't keeping us free, you are fighting for masters who would make us slaves. Congratulations, you've made the world a more dangerous place through your actions. People who sit on their fat asses are better than you, at least they aren't making the world worse. But oh, I'm sure every single one of the people you've killed was a bad guy. Have fun sleeping with your guilt and nightmares for the rest of your life.
Idiot. What makes you think scientists were behind this? Reporters were behind this. They have monetary reasons for scaremongering. What hidden agendas can you even think up that might prompt scientists to falsify results?
One sure sign of a crackpot is that he takes every chance he can get to insult and demean the scientific establishment. That shit won't fly here. It does not make you seem smart or wise in anyone's eyes. It just points out to all the smart folks here that you are an anti-intellectual dolt.
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.
If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!" and: The best athlete
wants his opponent at his best.
The best general
enters the mind of his enemy.
The best businessman
serves the communal good.
The best leader
follows the will of the people.
All of the embody
the virtue of non-competition.
Not that they don't love to compete,
but they do it in the spirit of play.
In this they are like children
and in harmony with the Tao. And my favorite, one of the most succinct statements on the theory of anarchism I've ever read: If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.