But in truth I doubt that there's anyone who can tell you exactly how the brain works, and which pathway belongs to the consistency checking job. If we knew that, we'd already have a working AI.
I don't know who said it, but the quote, "If the brain were simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it," springs to mind.:)
I spent the majority of my childhood until I was 18 picking rock and bailing hay on a farm. You think you're in a tedious, repetitive and boring job? The fact that you're posting on Slashdot during work hours tells me otherwise. I'll bet you have air conditioning.
Peter Gibbons: This isn't so bad, huh? Makin' bucks, gettin' exercise, workin' outside.
Lawrence: Fuckin' A.
Peter Gibbons: [nods] Fuckin' A.
- Office Space
The Orphanage was not directed by del Toro. He was one of the producers. (Thanks for reminding me of this movie BTW. I still want to see it).
He did direct another movie called The Devil's Backbone, which was also fantastic. (In both senses of the word). It's a lot like Pan Labyrinth without being devestatingly depressing.
To me that's the key to answering the whole free will vs. determinism debate right there. The question for establishing free will is not whether our choices are predetermined or unpredictable. The question is whether our choices are made by us or forced by events outside of us. And if what we are is completely determined by the laws of the universe and the subset of events which form us, then those events are merely a definition of what we are as a person. They are not what we are some victim to.
That's my take anyways. Determinism does not exclude the existence of free will.
So under your definition, if someone's actions are dictated by determined events beyond their control they have no free will. But as long as the events beyond their control determining their actions are random, they have free will?
Although I agree there are many examples of the Catholic Church blundering, I don't get your Big Bang reference. The Big Bang was first pushed by Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, and it was almost immediately accepted by the church as fitting in with Catholic doctrine. Ironically enough, the Big Bang was first resisted by several scientists because it implied a beginning, which can be troublesome for those with atheistic sensibilities. But when enough evidence came out supporting the Big Bang, a lot of them came around. Now we see a lot of Christians opposing the Big Bang. Sigghhh...
Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% [10]. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).
Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds[11]. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.
What point are you trying to make? Did you read the article to which you were referring?
What's wrong with semi-automatic weapons? Laws against fully automatic weapons I can see, and they're pretty much banned for use by civilians in the US anyways.
Most fervent anti-gun people I hear from don't even know the difference between semi and fully automatic guns, so when they hear about legislation against semi-automatic weapons they're thinking of something completely different.
I consider myself an agnostic, but I disagree. After all, have you proven that it's impossible for evidence about things which we currently consider to be metaphysical to ever be discovered?
Well according to the classic definition for agnosticism, a belief that the characteristics of gods are metaphysical is pretty much required. The unfortunate thing is that over time the commonly used definition of agnoticism has degraded to the point where it means, "I'm not sure enough regarding whether or not god(s) exist to make a judgement either way." But this is a wholly different state of affairs. A true agnostic can at the same time be a theist (I believe that the existence of God is a metaphysical question, but I have faith that He exists) or there can be agnostic atheists as well.
Now, that doesn't mean I think it's likely to be true; as a skeptic, I assume it's not by default. But that doesn't mean I'd deny reality if proven wrong.
No offense, but I think you are an atheist. Anyone who says, "I believe that no gods exist, but I would if proven otherwise," would still be considered an atheist. The key is whether or not they believe in any gods now, regardless of the reasoning.
Exactly! They believe (in the affirmative sense) that no gods exist without feeling the need for proof, i.e., they have faith in the non-existence of god(s) in exactly the same way that religious people have faith in the existence of them.
Not really. Atheists can support their belief by using Occam's Razor to argue that the theists have the burden of proof. I haven't heard any good arguments to support the belief in a personal God beyond pure religious faith. Fine for them, but it's not enough for me personally. I'll stick with my own goofy pantheistic beliefs myself. And you thought you have it hard arguing that you aren't an atheist.:)
I agree it depends on the definitions used for agnosticism and atheism. That's why it's important to use the correct ones.
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence/non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. It has nothing to do with insufficent evidence. The point to the agnostic is that claims about god(s) are metaphysical, and therefore no amount of evidence will be of any value for determining the truth of the claims.
An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any gods. An atheist does NOT have to be someone who feels they can prove that no gods exist.
I can't tell you how many people get these definitons wrong.
Is it the speed that the particles travel that dictates their temperature or the rate at which the paricles vibrate?
I remember that you can increase the temperature of a gas by increasing the pressure on it. It's sort of like if you take one of those super bouncy balls and drop it straight down and let it bounce up and down a while. If you slowly lower your hand on top of the ball so that it bounces off of your hand to the floor, the ball will bounce faster and faster as your hand goes down. Even though it looks like the ball is moving faster, its velocity never increases. It just changes how quickly it switches from the top of the bounce to the bottom.
The new simulation which more closely matches the widely known facts of destruction than earlier models shows that the center of mass of an asteroid exploding above the ground is transported downward at speeds faster than sound. It takes the form of a high-temperature jet of expanding gas called a fireball.
(Gandolf poking around the necromancer's home and finding out he's Sauron perhaps?)
Unfortunately this would be difficult to do seeing as how in the LOtR movies they portrayed Sauron as a big floating eye without the power to take physical form. I always thought that was stupid.
Oh yes. This is sometimes referred to the "Oxygen Holocaust" because, although it was a boon to life using energy and moving out of the oceans, the oxygen was toxic to many existing lifeforms and wiped them out. If Global Warming ever caused a change anywhere near as severe us humans would be royally and truly fucked. But you can be sure that life on earth would eventually thrive afterwards.
In the end, good music is just good music. With enough exposure to different styles, an individual can even recognize something they might not like as something good. (People who say stuff like, "That's not the type of music I'm into, but it's cool.")
Except for being luke-warm on Depechme Mode and Duran Duran I agree with all of your choices as examples of good music. (Loved the Cyndi Lauper reference BTW. She's pretty underrated.) I agree there was some great stuff in the 80s. But the 60s were amazing. At the time you had the double-threat of a counter-culture movement that wanted to explore other cultures and influences while also wanting to say something meaningful. This combination lead to an amount of experimentation and depth that produced some of the best modern music so far. Just because nostalgia skews things doesn't mean we should overcompensate when evaluating what stuff is worthwhile. It's just common sense that by some chance of cultural influences that some eras create better quality things in certain areas than others.
(Just as an aside, the 80s get more complicated when we look at more out of the mainstream music. Stuff like Sonic Youth, The Pixies and Bauhuas that became the influence for what I consider to be an upswing in musical quality in the early 90s.)
It's sort of like music, so many older people remember fondly how great music was back in 1960 and gee how bad and crappy music is now. But really there was dreck and one hit pop wonders back int he 60's too and it was also 80% dreck. You've just forgotten all the dreck, summed up a decades worth of music in 40 good songs and compared it to whats on the top 40 now which represents only the preceding month.
Wow, what nonsense. While it's true that nostalgia plays a part, it is also true that some decades just create better music than others. Don't believe me? Try comparing the good music produced in the 60s to the good music produced in the 80s. Both are old enough to have the nostlgia effect, but you'll find that there is far more quality music from the 60s than the 80s, and the cream-of-the-crop of the 60s is also of higher quality than the cream-of-the-crop from the 80s. This decade so far is another dry spell all-in-all, even though there is some decent stuff out there.
Everything you mentioned regarding the low AC temperatures are plausible explanations. However, I think you're missing one the biggest reasons why so many people in the US prefer the temperatures as low as they do.. the obesity epidemic. Just as I can always put on more layers of clothing, there's more than a few people out there who can just lose some weight. And probably should for various reasons.
No offense, but I can't stand the whole, "just put on more clothing if you're cold" thing. I live in upstate New York. So until the time I grow a brain and move to a more temperate climate I have to deal with bundling up way longer than I'd like to throughout the year. Psychologically, it's a bummer. In the deepest parts of winter you start getting fantasies of being able to just walk outside without worrying about offsetting the cold by hiding from the outside world with many layers of clothes. Just walking out wearing shorts and a T-shirt and feeling comfortable. Ahhhhhhhh... Then when it finally comes around to the time, I have to shiver in a restaurant, supermarket, whatever because some blobboids around me can't conceive of a life without daily consumption of soda/pop. (And that diet shit does *not* count). And now *I* have to bundle up again because of their deficiencies? I don't think so.
Sorry to vent. Oh, and no comment on how high I have the heat during the winter.
You have me convinced regarding the need for air conditioning in some climates. However, can someone explain to me why-oh-why so many people and businesses run their air conditioning as cold as they do? I routinely go to work or restaurants that are freezing me out to the point where it's more comfortable to be a little warm outside without the aritificial freezing temps.
Anything below 75 degrees Fahrenheit is flippin' overkill.
Control. There are simple, near-painless ways to solve the problems of CO2 if the supposed harms are taken at face value. No one wants these solutions (the tax plus sink listed above) because it doesn't wreck capitalism and doesn't achieve environmentalists' broader goals.
Now if only we could generate elelctricity from the power of paranoid delusions. We'd be set!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know who said it, but the quote, "If the brain were simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it," springs to mind. :)
The absolute zero of empty space is a much different situation than the absolute zero of the collider.
Conduction is a bitch.
This... is... Sparta! (Among others).
Of course not. But was is meant is, "Watch as I pretend to say something worthwhile."
Peter Gibbons: This isn't so bad, huh? Makin' bucks, gettin' exercise, workin' outside.
Lawrence: Fuckin' A.
Peter Gibbons: [nods] Fuckin' A.
- Office Space
The Orphanage was not directed by del Toro. He was one of the producers. (Thanks for reminding me of this movie BTW. I still want to see it).
He did direct another movie called The Devil's Backbone, which was also fantastic. (In both senses of the word). It's a lot like Pan Labyrinth without being devestatingly depressing.
Thank you!
To me that's the key to answering the whole free will vs. determinism debate right there. The question for establishing free will is not whether our choices are predetermined or unpredictable. The question is whether our choices are made by us or forced by events outside of us. And if what we are is completely determined by the laws of the universe and the subset of events which form us, then those events are merely a definition of what we are as a person. They are not what we are some victim to.
That's my take anyways. Determinism does not exclude the existence of free will.
So under your definition, if someone's actions are dictated by determined events beyond their control they have no free will. But as long as the events beyond their control determining their actions are random, they have free will?
Bad definition.
Although I agree there are many examples of the Catholic Church blundering, I don't get your Big Bang reference. The Big Bang was first pushed by Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, and it was almost immediately accepted by the church as fitting in with Catholic doctrine. Ironically enough, the Big Bang was first resisted by several scientists because it implied a beginning, which can be troublesome for those with atheistic sensibilities. But when enough evidence came out supporting the Big Bang, a lot of them came around. Now we see a lot of Christians opposing the Big Bang. Sigghhh...
What point are you trying to make? Did you read the article to which you were referring?
What's wrong with semi-automatic weapons? Laws against fully automatic weapons I can see, and they're pretty much banned for use by civilians in the US anyways.
Most fervent anti-gun people I hear from don't even know the difference between semi and fully automatic guns, so when they hear about legislation against semi-automatic weapons they're thinking of something completely different.
Yes the GP's comments were pretty ironic. But the irony in your post is that the real Stephen Colbert is a practicing Catholic. :)
Well according to the classic definition for agnosticism, a belief that the characteristics of gods are metaphysical is pretty much required. The unfortunate thing is that over time the commonly used definition of agnoticism has degraded to the point where it means, "I'm not sure enough regarding whether or not god(s) exist to make a judgement either way." But this is a wholly different state of affairs. A true agnostic can at the same time be a theist (I believe that the existence of God is a metaphysical question, but I have faith that He exists) or there can be agnostic atheists as well.
No offense, but I think you are an atheist. Anyone who says, "I believe that no gods exist, but I would if proven otherwise," would still be considered an atheist. The key is whether or not they believe in any gods now, regardless of the reasoning.
Not really. Atheists can support their belief by using Occam's Razor to argue that the theists have the burden of proof. I haven't heard any good arguments to support the belief in a personal God beyond pure religious faith. Fine for them, but it's not enough for me personally. I'll stick with my own goofy pantheistic beliefs myself. And you thought you have it hard arguing that you aren't an atheist. :)
I agree it depends on the definitions used for agnosticism and atheism. That's why it's important to use the correct ones.
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence/non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. It has nothing to do with insufficent evidence. The point to the agnostic is that claims about god(s) are metaphysical, and therefore no amount of evidence will be of any value for determining the truth of the claims.
An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any gods. An atheist does NOT have to be someone who feels they can prove that no gods exist.
I can't tell you how many people get these definitons wrong.
Is it the speed that the particles travel that dictates their temperature or the rate at which the paricles vibrate?
I remember that you can increase the temperature of a gas by increasing the pressure on it. It's sort of like if you take one of those super bouncy balls and drop it straight down and let it bounce up and down a while. If you slowly lower your hand on top of the ball so that it bounces off of your hand to the floor, the ball will bounce faster and faster as your hand goes down. Even though it looks like the ball is moving faster, its velocity never increases. It just changes how quickly it switches from the top of the bounce to the bottom.
The new simulation which more closely matches the widely known facts of destruction than earlier models shows that the center of mass of an asteroid exploding above the ground is transported downward at speeds faster than sound. It takes the form of a high-temperature jet of expanding gas called a fireball.
Good thing we made the Saving Throw!
Unfortunately this would be difficult to do seeing as how in the LOtR movies they portrayed Sauron as a big floating eye without the power to take physical form. I always thought that was stupid.
Oh yes. This is sometimes referred to the "Oxygen Holocaust" because, although it was a boon to life using energy and moving out of the oceans, the oxygen was toxic to many existing lifeforms and wiped them out. If Global Warming ever caused a change anywhere near as severe us humans would be royally and truly fucked. But you can be sure that life on earth would eventually thrive afterwards.
"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
In the end, good music is just good music. With enough exposure to different styles, an individual can even recognize something they might not like as something good. (People who say stuff like, "That's not the type of music I'm into, but it's cool.")
Except for being luke-warm on Depechme Mode and Duran Duran I agree with all of your choices as examples of good music. (Loved the Cyndi Lauper reference BTW. She's pretty underrated.) I agree there was some great stuff in the 80s. But the 60s were amazing. At the time you had the double-threat of a counter-culture movement that wanted to explore other cultures and influences while also wanting to say something meaningful. This combination lead to an amount of experimentation and depth that produced some of the best modern music so far. Just because nostalgia skews things doesn't mean we should overcompensate when evaluating what stuff is worthwhile. It's just common sense that by some chance of cultural influences that some eras create better quality things in certain areas than others.
(Just as an aside, the 80s get more complicated when we look at more out of the mainstream music. Stuff like Sonic Youth, The Pixies and Bauhuas that became the influence for what I consider to be an upswing in musical quality in the early 90s.)
Wow, what nonsense. While it's true that nostalgia plays a part, it is also true that some decades just create better music than others. Don't believe me? Try comparing the good music produced in the 60s to the good music produced in the 80s. Both are old enough to have the nostlgia effect, but you'll find that there is far more quality music from the 60s than the 80s, and the cream-of-the-crop of the 60s is also of higher quality than the cream-of-the-crop from the 80s. This decade so far is another dry spell all-in-all, even though there is some decent stuff out there.
You took the words right out of my mouth. One of my favorite comics.
Everything you mentioned regarding the low AC temperatures are plausible explanations. However, I think you're missing one the biggest reasons why so many people in the US prefer the temperatures as low as they do.. the obesity epidemic. Just as I can always put on more layers of clothing, there's more than a few people out there who can just lose some weight. And probably should for various reasons.
No offense, but I can't stand the whole, "just put on more clothing if you're cold" thing. I live in upstate New York. So until the time I grow a brain and move to a more temperate climate I have to deal with bundling up way longer than I'd like to throughout the year. Psychologically, it's a bummer. In the deepest parts of winter you start getting fantasies of being able to just walk outside without worrying about offsetting the cold by hiding from the outside world with many layers of clothes. Just walking out wearing shorts and a T-shirt and feeling comfortable. Ahhhhhhhh... Then when it finally comes around to the time, I have to shiver in a restaurant, supermarket, whatever because some blobboids around me can't conceive of a life without daily consumption of soda/pop. (And that diet shit does *not* count). And now *I* have to bundle up again because of their deficiencies? I don't think so.
Sorry to vent. Oh, and no comment on how high I have the heat during the winter.
You have me convinced regarding the need for air conditioning in some climates. However, can someone explain to me why-oh-why so many people and businesses run their air conditioning as cold as they do? I routinely go to work or restaurants that are freezing me out to the point where it's more comfortable to be a little warm outside without the aritificial freezing temps.
Anything below 75 degrees Fahrenheit is flippin' overkill.
Control. There are simple, near-painless ways to solve the problems of CO2 if the supposed harms are taken at face value. No one wants these solutions (the tax plus sink listed above) because it doesn't wreck capitalism and doesn't achieve environmentalists' broader goals.
Now if only we could generate elelctricity from the power of paranoid delusions. We'd be set!