The possible "shockwave" I was thinking of would be like an earthquake (in this case, "moonquake"). That is, a shockwave through the rock surface of the moon, NOT THE NON-EXISTENT ATMOSPHERE. How stupid do you think I am?
The travelling energy you are talking about is the electromagnetic radiation I mentioned in my earlier post. In a nuclear explosion, this usually takes the form of X-rays and gamma radiation. Of course, EM radiation can move through a vacuum. I'm guessing that when this EM radiation hits the surface of the moon, it will generate heat, just as the visible light radiated from the sun warms the earth when it hits it. Except this would be A LOT of heat, all at once. If I'm wrong about this part, then I'd love to know why. Like I said, though, I'm still shakey on whether or not this would cause the ground to shake on the moon.
A nuke detonated 10 feet over the surface of the moon would amount to little more than a small dust cloud a few feet in diameter (if anything) when the remaining atoms slammed into the surface.
Actually, the intense electromagnetic radiation generated by the nuclear explosion would create enough heat when it hit the surface of the moon 10 feet under it to effectively vaporize a big chunk o'
moon. This sudden heating may also generate a sizable shockwave across the surface of the moon. (I'm not quite sure about the shockwave part. But you can bet the heat and light would be something to behold.)
I realize your didn't ask my opinion, but here's some things you might want to consider.
Most Libertarians I know fall into "liberal" and "conservative" categories. The liberal-Libertarians prefer the Libertarian party because they support its strong ideals in opposing all forms of regulating "consensual crimes". That is, they oppose the thought of government regulating morality. An outstanding book on this topic is called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. The constituents of the Republican Party, still having ties to the Religious Right, often like to use government as a tool to push their moral beliefs on other people rather than using their own eloquence and example to influence how others might lead their lives. By doing this they do a disservice to both the government and their own moral codes. Although I feel historically this has been more of a Republican than Democratic fetish, the Democrats seem to be trying to catch up what with that whole pathetic Political Correctness movement and with constituents such as Lieberman crying foul on the content of games and music in the media. So anyone who was attracted to the Democratic Party because they were against moral regulation from the government are increasingly better served by the Libertarian Party.
Also, the isolationist philosophy of the Libertarian Party appeals to Democrats who feel that the government is spending too much money on the military and we are causing others to hate us due to excessive meddling in other countries' affairs. You can read some pretty eloquent arguments against the recent war on Iraq on the Libertarian Party's home page.
Of course, the conservative-Libertarians support the Libertarian party because of things like oppositions to gun-control, lower taxes (to the point of obliterating any income tax), and drastically reducing government regulation of businesses. The "who is the government to tell me how to live my life" focus of the liberal-Libertarians switches to the "who is the government to decide how our money should be spent" focus of the conservative-Libertarians.
I put the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in quotes when describing the 2 forms of Libertarians because actually it's all the classic conservative philosophy of keeping government as small as possible taken too its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the meaning of "conservative" has been bastardized over time.
My 2 cents,
Tyler
Re:Actually thats the recommended approach
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 1
So someone dares support their point with facts and they are modded down as flamebait???
This is the political climate of the day. Dare to make constructive criticism of the actions of the current presidency and they are labeled unpatriotic. Absolutely pathetic.
Any government that refuses to evaluate itself objectively or learn from its mistake deserves to fail.
I don't know what the event was, but last night on C-SPAN there appeared to be some sort of hearing that at least partially dealt with Clearchannel and their treatment of the whole Dixie Chicks scenario. It was especially fun to watch when senator John McCain was reading some Clearchannel executive the riot act for suppressing free speech, even though he strongly disagreed with what the Dixie Chicks said himself.
What was especially scary was an e-mail someone was sent regarding comments Bruce Springsteen received after expressing support for the Dixie Chicks on his web page. The e-mail said something like, "I guess Srpingsteen didn't hear what the Dixie Chicks said. Perhaps he'd like to see what would happen to him if he said that out loud." Scary stuff.
Sorry that my post is so vague, but I only caught it from the middle. It will probably be shown on C-SPAN again if you look for it.
Life, however, is unfair by nature. No one, ever, with the exception of Hindus and some Buddhists have claimed otherwise.
Errrr.. the First Noble Truth of Buddhism is "All life is suffering." I doubt any serious Buddhist would claim that life is fair. Actually, he would say that one of the reasons we suffer is that we feel that life should be fair.
I'm saying that the Linux community is always screaming about how Microsoft doesn't abide by industry standards (XML anyone?), yet there are NO application standards in Linux. It's like the pointing out the splinter in your enemy's eye only to miss the 2x4 in your own.
The concept of "standard" that the Linux community is using is completely different than the one that you are talking about. Mostly they mean "open standard" in that the details of an algorithm or file format are published openly and specified clearly so that anyone with the programming know-how can write code that utilizes the technology while adhering to the standard.
When people complain about Microsoft not adhering to industry standards then usually they are saying one of two things. One is that they are utilizing proprietary technology that others cannot integrate without open information, causing dependence on the whims of a monopoly. The other is that Microsoft might label a product of theirs as adhering to a standard when what they are really doing is simply using elements of the standard and extending it with proprietary pieces all their own, thus breaking the standard.
Most, if not all of the Linux software mentioned by others adheres to open standards. What you don't like is the fact that there is a plurality of competing standards used by Linux, which is another thing entirely. The philosophy of the open source community is that the open standards within the software/technology will lead to competition between them on a level playing field, eventually leading to one emerging as your concept of "standard" for Linux. Time will tell whether or not this will actually work.
Re:I've filled my time with things I'd rather do.
on
Robots Without a Cause
·
· Score: 1
This has nothing to do with doing...errr... nothing. If you read the linked page from my original post, it says...
The main problem with this great obsession for Saving Time is very simple: you can't SAVE time. You can only spend it. But you can spend it wisely or foolishly.
Everyone I've talked to with a full-time job and a family does not have enough time to do what they need to in a day, to the point that they can't get enough sleep and it's getting worse every year. Even during an economic boom this remains the trend. But wait, progress it supposed to make our lives better, right? So what are the new products we are working so much harder to obtain that are worth the cost of being stressed to the point where life is no longer worth living?
It remains a fact that our lives there days are just to safe. Nicely tucked in, mimimal risk lives. And with that they took a lot of the exitement out of our lives.
I've got it! What we do is start this thing called a "Fight Club", then we get enough guys involved in it so we can...
...oh, wait a minute. I already tried that... my bad.
One is the most powerful army the world has ever seen.
If we (the US) made 1/10th the effort on resolving problems through diplomacy as we did through (expensive) military might throughout history there would be no terrorist threats to our welfare right now.
Two are health instruments that let otherwise deaf, partially-blind humans experience life without the overhead from their surroundings or genetics.
OK, your got me there.
Three is Automobiles that sing to us and massage our asses and blow on us when we feel a tad warm or chilly.
As tempting as the ass massage sounds, I think I can pass on this one.
Four is personal simulators that can simulate almost anything on a screen right in front of you.
I get more satisfaction bicycling or simply going to the park.
Damn... and all I have to do to get all of this is sit in a chair and learn new things for a living. Sounds like a bum deal.
Wait a minute. You never had to deal with the unreasonable demands of some customer who happens to be an asshole over the phone? Never had to put in extra time due to the short-sightedness of some idiot from sales? All you had to do is sit in a chair and learn new things? You have to tell me where you work 'cause I need to send a resume.
Keep moving down the list and somewhere around Starbucks give me a call... on my cell phone.
Both Starbucks and cell phones are abominations, but feel free to enjoy your shallow life on my account.
Back in the day (lets call it 4000 years ago), these responsibilites alone would consume your entire day. After fighting off the bears and forest creatures, you needed to plant your garden, harvest what is in season, tend to your living area, somehow patch that wound on your leg, and maybe try and pass on your genes.
That sounds like a lot more than we do in a typical day. And then you would have to sleep!
Actually, that's not necessarily true. Not sure about 4000 years ago specifically, but I remeber hearing from multiple sources (one I can remeber from "The Cartoon History of the Universe, Vol. 1") that Prehistoric Man actually had a lot of free time. Especially if they were settled in an environment with abundant food supplies like a Rain Forest. The pressures really came into play when certain outposts of humans became dominating and warlike and then all others had to do the same or be wiped out.
Of course I'm sure it was an inevitable outcome of human nature and I don't pretend to have any quick answers. I just feel that if more people could truly enjoy down-time without having to keep themselves busy then this could gradually be a better place. Not a panacea, just a little bit better at a time. It's very difficult to separate oneself from an increasingly high-paced society given how interdependent we are.
I've said something similar to this before, but when I think of where society is heading, I think this selection from the Tao of Pooh is an important thing to consider.
In case the site gets/.ed into oblivion, the most relevant piece goes like this...
Practically speaking, if timesaving devices really saved time, there would be more time available to us now than ever before in history. But, strangely enough, we seem to have less time than even a few years ago. It's really great fun to go someplace where there are no timesaving devices because, when you do, you find that you have LOTS OF TIME. Elsewhere, you're too busy working to pay for machines to save
you time so you won't have to work so hard.
Does anyone else feel like this? How much of the time do we spend stressing out on work-related pressure is born of necessity and how much is just for gaining status? Or better yet, how much of it is to feed an economic machine that depends on convincing us that killing ourselves to get useless stuff is worth more than the piece of mind we could achieve without actively pursuing said stuff in the first place. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world who notices there is a problem here yet I have to suffer under a lot of needless pressure because of others who demand everything "right now" without a thought of why. It wouldn't surprise me if the medical advances made possible by the current economic system are outnumbered by the health problems it caused due to work-related stress. Fuck, I'd rather die 10 years earlier than I would normally if it means that I get to relax and enjoy myself some while I was alive.
Because the Conservatives are the only ones that can back up their beliefs and ideals with logic and reason.
Let me guess, you've never heard of Noam Chomsky, have you? (Or if you have, heard or read what he has said directly and not from what a conservative pundit tells you about him?)
You like Fox News, right? None of Alan Colmes arguments have displayed logic or reason to you? Or Pat Buchanan's opponent on MSNBC (can't think of his name).
Take out all of the showmanship and entertainment value of Rush Limbaugh. Would he still be as popular if he used his *ahem* unique version of logic and reason alone without these things? I can think of some excellent, logical conservative pundits out there. A friend of mine recently introduced me to a smart bloke by the name of Bob Lonsberry. But you have to admit that a lot of the louder mainstream right-wing talking heads out there get popular through entertaining people and keeping them feeling good about their country no matter what it does.
It is your right to hate all things liberal. However, you might want to make an honest objective attempt to know what you are hating before you continue to do so. After I began looking into the conservative viewpoint which I didn't understand I found many constructive challenges to my views and other points I found I agreed with which I never knew were conservative ideals. Quite honestly the thing which prevented me into looking into conservative philosophy the most were those conservative blow-hards screaming their logic and reason in my ear and blinding me to the true conservative thinkers who were out there. You can find quite similar results from the liberal side of things as well.
Public/private/protected access in C++ is a programming convention, not a security feature. It was never meant to be a security feature, so this is not a weakness of C++. Classes are written to provide tools for another programmer. If he wants to be "malicious" with the provided tools then the only person he's being malicious to is himself.
I'm not sure whether access levels in C# is meant to be a security feature or not. If it is, then Microsoft screwed up, if not then they didn't.
Writing templates in C++ is never fun. However using a well-written set of templates (ie. STL ) is heaven.
There is no reason to believe that subjective phenomena cannot be mechanistic. For example certain low-level image processing phenomena are largely understood at the mechnical level yet also are subjectively experienced. Think about line recognition: I can have the subjective experience of looking at an image and recognizing a line ("oh look, there's a line"). But this can be completely mapped to specific mechanistic processes in the brain. Its certainly plausible to believe that all subjective experiences are explainable by mechnistic processes in this way. Note that I don't claim that we know that is true, just that its at least a plausible model.
I think the question is, though, does a further understanding of some of the mechanistic basis behind the experience of a thing (such as the science behind how our eyes and brain process light phenomenon) get us any closer to grasping what it is to experience the thing (the actual qualia of sight). I could explain how the eye and brain work together to a blind person as long as I want, but he will never get any closer to knowing what it's like to actually see. I feel trying to explain consciousness is similar.
No, I'm claiming that the dualist view is irrational (using the strict meaning of that word) because you claim there is no rational (aka mechanistic) explanation for subjective phenomena. In other words your claim is that there is a metaphysical explanation for subjectivity. That's irrational. Whether it is true or not is another matter entirely.
OK. I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up.
Gosh but we're offtopic. Acutally, if I really wanted to understand consciousness I'd dedicate myself to Zen Buddhism. But that's just me.:)
You're trying to explain the experience of a thing (subjective view) with a mechanical explanation (objective view)? Once you reduce a subjective phenomenon to an objective explanation then what you're describing is no longer a subjective phenomenon and thus you haven't explained anything at all.
I fail to see where the contradiction is in thinking that consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically. It almost it seems that you're saying,"The hypothesis that consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically is irrational because it doesn't work when we try to explain consciousness mechanistically."
One mathematician whose ability didn't decline at all in his older years was Paul Erdos. He was making important contributions right up until his death at age 83. The only person who created more proofs than him was Euler. But if one included mathematical proofs which others made because of Erdos' help, he'd beat him.
Slashdot Mirror
The travelling energy you are talking about is the electromagnetic radiation I mentioned in my earlier post. In a nuclear explosion, this usually takes the form of X-rays and gamma radiation. Of course, EM radiation can move through a vacuum. I'm guessing that when this EM radiation hits the surface of the moon, it will generate heat, just as the visible light radiated from the sun warms the earth when it hits it. Except this would be A LOT of heat, all at once. If I'm wrong about this part, then I'd love to know why. Like I said, though, I'm still shakey on whether or not this would cause the ground to shake on the moon.
Actually, the intense electromagnetic radiation generated by the nuclear explosion would create enough heat when it hit the surface of the moon 10 feet under it to effectively vaporize a big chunk o' moon. This sudden heating may also generate a sizable shockwave across the surface of the moon. (I'm not quite sure about the shockwave part. But you can bet the heat and light would be something to behold.)
Which one?
Most Libertarians I know fall into "liberal" and "conservative" categories. The liberal-Libertarians prefer the Libertarian party because they support its strong ideals in opposing all forms of regulating "consensual crimes". That is, they oppose the thought of government regulating morality. An outstanding book on this topic is called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. The constituents of the Republican Party, still having ties to the Religious Right, often like to use government as a tool to push their moral beliefs on other people rather than using their own eloquence and example to influence how others might lead their lives. By doing this they do a disservice to both the government and their own moral codes. Although I feel historically this has been more of a Republican than Democratic fetish, the Democrats seem to be trying to catch up what with that whole pathetic Political Correctness movement and with constituents such as Lieberman crying foul on the content of games and music in the media. So anyone who was attracted to the Democratic Party because they were against moral regulation from the government are increasingly better served by the Libertarian Party.
Also, the isolationist philosophy of the Libertarian Party appeals to Democrats who feel that the government is spending too much money on the military and we are causing others to hate us due to excessive meddling in other countries' affairs. You can read some pretty eloquent arguments against the recent war on Iraq on the Libertarian Party's home page.
Of course, the conservative-Libertarians support the Libertarian party because of things like oppositions to gun-control, lower taxes (to the point of obliterating any income tax), and drastically reducing government regulation of businesses. The "who is the government to tell me how to live my life" focus of the liberal-Libertarians switches to the "who is the government to decide how our money should be spent" focus of the conservative-Libertarians.
I put the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in quotes when describing the 2 forms of Libertarians because actually it's all the classic conservative philosophy of keeping government as small as possible taken too its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the meaning of "conservative" has been bastardized over time.
My 2 cents,
Tyler
I remeber seeing this first from the UNIX System Administration Handbook.
So someone dares support their point with facts and they are modded down as flamebait???
This is the political climate of the day. Dare to make constructive criticism of the actions of the current presidency and they are labeled unpatriotic. Absolutely pathetic.
Any government that refuses to evaluate itself objectively or learn from its mistake deserves to fail.
I don't know what the event was, but last night on C-SPAN there appeared to be some sort of hearing that at least partially dealt with Clearchannel and their treatment of the whole Dixie Chicks scenario. It was especially fun to watch when senator John McCain was reading some Clearchannel executive the riot act for suppressing free speech, even though he strongly disagreed with what the Dixie Chicks said himself.
What was especially scary was an e-mail someone was sent regarding comments Bruce Springsteen received after expressing support for the Dixie Chicks on his web page. The e-mail said something like, "I guess Srpingsteen didn't hear what the Dixie Chicks said. Perhaps he'd like to see what would happen to him if he said that out loud." Scary stuff.
Sorry that my post is so vague, but I only caught it from the middle. It will probably be shown on C-SPAN again if you look for it.
Errrr.. the First Noble Truth of Buddhism is "All life is suffering." I doubt any serious Buddhist would claim that life is fair. Actually, he would say that one of the reasons we suffer is that we feel that life should be fair.
If you really want to be a killer as you described, the Marine Corps is the way to go. Haven't you seen "Full Metal Jacket"?
"What makes the grass grow?"
"Blood! Blood! Blood!"
"Without me, my rifle is useless; without my rifle, I am useless."
Not that I consider it a sin myself.
A little OT here, but this reminds me of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes comic where Calvin shows Hobbes a butterfly he captured and put in a jar.
Upon seeing the butterfly Hobbes replies, "If people could put rainbows in zoos they'd do it."
The last panel simply shows Calvin letting the butterfly fly out of the open jar.
The concept of "standard" that the Linux community is using is completely different than the one that you are talking about. Mostly they mean "open standard" in that the details of an algorithm or file format are published openly and specified clearly so that anyone with the programming know-how can write code that utilizes the technology while adhering to the standard.
When people complain about Microsoft not adhering to industry standards then usually they are saying one of two things. One is that they are utilizing proprietary technology that others cannot integrate without open information, causing dependence on the whims of a monopoly. The other is that Microsoft might label a product of theirs as adhering to a standard when what they are really doing is simply using elements of the standard and extending it with proprietary pieces all their own, thus breaking the standard.
Most, if not all of the Linux software mentioned by others adheres to open standards. What you don't like is the fact that there is a plurality of competing standards used by Linux, which is another thing entirely. The philosophy of the open source community is that the open standards within the software/technology will lead to competition between them on a level playing field, eventually leading to one emerging as your concept of "standard" for Linux. Time will tell whether or not this will actually work.
The main problem with this great obsession for Saving Time is very simple: you can't SAVE time. You can only spend it. But you can spend it wisely or foolishly.
Everyone I've talked to with a full-time job and a family does not have enough time to do what they need to in a day, to the point that they can't get enough sleep and it's getting worse every year. Even during an economic boom this remains the trend. But wait, progress it supposed to make our lives better, right? So what are the new products we are working so much harder to obtain that are worth the cost of being stressed to the point where life is no longer worth living?
I've got it! What we do is start this thing called a "Fight Club", then we get enough guys involved in it so we can...
If we (the US) made 1/10th the effort on resolving problems through diplomacy as we did through (expensive) military might throughout history there would be no terrorist threats to our welfare right now.
Two are health instruments that let otherwise deaf, partially-blind humans experience life without the overhead from their surroundings or genetics.
OK, your got me there.
Three is Automobiles that sing to us and massage our asses and blow on us when we feel a tad warm or chilly.
As tempting as the ass massage sounds, I think I can pass on this one.
Four is personal simulators that can simulate almost anything on a screen right in front of you.
I get more satisfaction bicycling or simply going to the park.
Damn... and all I have to do to get all of this is sit in a chair and learn new things for a living. Sounds like a bum deal.
Wait a minute. You never had to deal with the unreasonable demands of some customer who happens to be an asshole over the phone? Never had to put in extra time due to the short-sightedness of some idiot from sales? All you had to do is sit in a chair and learn new things? You have to tell me where you work 'cause I need to send a resume.
Keep moving down the list and somewhere around Starbucks give me a call... on my cell phone.
Both Starbucks and cell phones are abominations, but feel free to enjoy your shallow life on my account.
That sounds like a lot more than we do in a typical day. And then you would have to sleep!
Actually, that's not necessarily true. Not sure about 4000 years ago specifically, but I remeber hearing from multiple sources (one I can remeber from "The Cartoon History of the Universe, Vol. 1") that Prehistoric Man actually had a lot of free time. Especially if they were settled in an environment with abundant food supplies like a Rain Forest. The pressures really came into play when certain outposts of humans became dominating and warlike and then all others had to do the same or be wiped out.
Of course I'm sure it was an inevitable outcome of human nature and I don't pretend to have any quick answers. I just feel that if more people could truly enjoy down-time without having to keep themselves busy then this could gradually be a better place. Not a panacea, just a little bit better at a time. It's very difficult to separate oneself from an increasingly high-paced society given how interdependent we are.
In case the site gets /.ed into oblivion, the most relevant piece goes like this...
Practically speaking, if timesaving devices really saved time, there would be more time available to us now than ever before in history. But, strangely enough, we seem to have less time than even a few years ago. It's really great fun to go someplace where there are no timesaving devices because, when you do, you find that you have LOTS OF TIME. Elsewhere, you're too busy working to pay for machines to save you time so you won't have to work so hard.
Does anyone else feel like this? How much of the time do we spend stressing out on work-related pressure is born of necessity and how much is just for gaining status? Or better yet, how much of it is to feed an economic machine that depends on convincing us that killing ourselves to get useless stuff is worth more than the piece of mind we could achieve without actively pursuing said stuff in the first place. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world who notices there is a problem here yet I have to suffer under a lot of needless pressure because of others who demand everything "right now" without a thought of why. It wouldn't surprise me if the medical advances made possible by the current economic system are outnumbered by the health problems it caused due to work-related stress. Fuck, I'd rather die 10 years earlier than I would normally if it means that I get to relax and enjoy myself some while I was alive.
Let me guess, you've never heard of Noam Chomsky, have you? (Or if you have, heard or read what he has said directly and not from what a conservative pundit tells you about him?)
You like Fox News, right? None of Alan Colmes arguments have displayed logic or reason to you? Or Pat Buchanan's opponent on MSNBC (can't think of his name).
Take out all of the showmanship and entertainment value of Rush Limbaugh. Would he still be as popular if he used his *ahem* unique version of logic and reason alone without these things? I can think of some excellent, logical conservative pundits out there. A friend of mine recently introduced me to a smart bloke by the name of Bob Lonsberry. But you have to admit that a lot of the louder mainstream right-wing talking heads out there get popular through entertaining people and keeping them feeling good about their country no matter what it does.
It is your right to hate all things liberal. However, you might want to make an honest objective attempt to know what you are hating before you continue to do so. After I began looking into the conservative viewpoint which I didn't understand I found many constructive challenges to my views and other points I found I agreed with which I never knew were conservative ideals. Quite honestly the thing which prevented me into looking into conservative philosophy the most were those conservative blow-hards screaming their logic and reason in my ear and blinding me to the true conservative thinkers who were out there. You can find quite similar results from the liberal side of things as well.
Geeks hese days get work only on OSS.
Sweet! Sounds like geek paradise to me.Where do I sign up? :)
"AC don't have to curse to sell his Em' parody."
;-)
Well I do, so fuck him and fuck you too...
Public/private/protected access in C++ is a programming convention, not a security feature. It was never meant to be a security feature, so this is not a weakness of C++. Classes are written to provide tools for another programmer. If he wants to be "malicious" with the provided tools then the only person he's being malicious to is himself.
I'm not sure whether access levels in C# is meant to be a security feature or not. If it is, then Microsoft screwed up, if not then they didn't.
Writing templates in C++ is never fun. However using a well-written set of templates (ie. STL ) is heaven.
You can get a "who cares?" and "amen brother!" from me.
;-)
I swear, if I come across another set of standards I have to learn I'm gonna start fucking killing people.
Ahhhhh... screw it. I think I'll just start killing people anyways.
*On clock tower*
"This one is Homer Simpson, and this one is Homer Simpson..."
I think the question is, though, does a further understanding of some of the mechanistic basis behind the experience of a thing (such as the science behind how our eyes and brain process light phenomenon) get us any closer to grasping what it is to experience the thing (the actual qualia of sight). I could explain how the eye and brain work together to a blind person as long as I want, but he will never get any closer to knowing what it's like to actually see. I feel trying to explain consciousness is similar.
No, I'm claiming that the dualist view is irrational (using the strict meaning of that word) because you claim there is no rational (aka mechanistic) explanation for subjective phenomena. In other words your claim is that there is a metaphysical explanation for subjectivity. That's irrational. Whether it is true or not is another matter entirely.
OK. I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up.
Gosh but we're offtopic. Acutally, if I really wanted to understand consciousness I'd dedicate myself to Zen Buddhism. But that's just me. :)
You're trying to explain the experience of a thing (subjective view) with a mechanical explanation (objective view)? Once you reduce a subjective phenomenon to an objective explanation then what you're describing is no longer a subjective phenomenon and thus you haven't explained anything at all.
I fail to see where the contradiction is in thinking that consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically. It almost it seems that you're saying,"The hypothesis that consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically is irrational because it doesn't work when we try to explain consciousness mechanistically."
You can learn more about it from this book.