Not only that, but it would actually be a genuine examle of a Catch-22 - a phrase that is often misused...
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
Hmmm, "social underachiever". I kind of like the sound of that. "Why no, I don't suck at social situations. I'd be great at it if I tried really hard. I'm just what you'd call a 'social underachiever.' Yeah, that's the ticket!'"
If you think it's biased then it must be biased, amirite? It's purely biased and anyone who could disagree is mentally unstable. Because there's only one correct way to think.
Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations are not the only two out there, though they seem to be the only two discussed. I personally prefer objective collapse theory.
Here the wavefunction is an actual physical phenomenon, collapse is not subjective while still being non-deterministic and having no hidden variables. You also don't have to consider both alive and dead cats or many simultaneous worlds you have to take on faith.
The mutually assured destruction idea from the Cold War almost became a reality multiple times do to various "oopses" during that period. It was largely because of a discomforting amount of dumb luck that it didn't end really really badly.
Even if that were the case, why must it be our job to fix it? We're war-weary because of trying to fix too many of the world's problems to begin with. Or, more accurately, pretending to fix the world's problems in order to ensure a complex web of international relations stays on track to keep the US economy humming along.
A government is meant to be concerned with the citizens of their governed. A dictator from another country gassing his own people should not be its concern.
You would completely erase all your work by just eating 5 cookies, or drinking 2 bottles of Gatorade
Yeah, any population that considers 5 cookies or 2 bottles of Gatorade to be an insignificant amount of food is going to have a weight problem. Just the thought of that much in addition to my normal diet over the course of a day makes me slightly ill.
Sure, but we have much better understanding regarding how the laws of motion work than the mechanics of consciousness, which isn't much better than hand-waving in comparison. To have a detailed model work in several instances, and have the same results due to a different mechanism in others would be a much less believable coincidence than with consciousness.
The laws of motion are also very good in that it is a very simple model that can be extended to describe seemingly complicated phenomenon. Consciousness at this point seems complicated and is not well understood. It would be much simpler, in some sense, to assume that everyone else is a philosophical zombie without having to appeal to the idea of consciousness. In another sense, they look/behave just the same as me, so why me and not them?
I think one of the big questions about consciousness is in what sense it is "real", besides the subjective experience. (Or the ability to have a subjective experience). What are the essential qualities needed for such an emergent process to exist?
There are some non-junk non-New Agey type theories about the universe in some sense being conscious (labeled Panpsychism), though I don't buy into them personally. The argument is that all objects have some level of consciousness, some more than others due to some kind of emergence from complexity. But, again, what the exact conditions these are that increase the level of consciousness is the big question.
But we've confirmed that the laws of motion apply to every planetary body we've bothered to test against them. It started with the moon*, where Newton used his newly-invented calculus to verify that the its motion would match the predictions of his theory.
That anyone else besides myself is conscious is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to believe that you're happy with what you have when you haven't experienced any other options.
Hmmm, "social underachiever". I kind of like the sound of that. "Why no, I don't suck at social situations. I'd be great at it if I tried really hard. I'm just what you'd call a 'social underachiever.' Yeah, that's the ticket!'"
I should start using that. :)
If you think it's biased then it must be biased, amirite? It's purely biased and anyone who could disagree is mentally unstable. Because there's only one correct way to think.
Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations are not the only two out there, though they seem to be the only two discussed. I personally prefer objective collapse theory.
Here the wavefunction is an actual physical phenomenon, collapse is not subjective while still being non-deterministic and having no hidden variables. You also don't have to consider both alive and dead cats or many simultaneous worlds you have to take on faith.
Well, true, but then there'd be a lot more people out there who would be interesting to talk to.
So cyborg cockroaches are smart enough to start up an ethics debate? These suckers are advanced!
Even though The Shield isn't as good as Breaking Bad (but still pretty damn good), I thought the season quality was pretty solid from year to year.
It also had a better ending than BB imo.
At least it wouldn't be another proxy war against China. Those things never work out.
True. But whether or not the kernel is a microkernel has nothing to do with whether or not it is a Unix kernel.
Linux is just as much of a Unix kernel as he intended to build.
But really, for any reasonable definition of the term, Linux is essentially a Unix kernel.
I was going to reply with a "citation needed" to this one but, on second thought, if this is true then I really don't need to know.
Maybe...
Masterful!
I see what you did there.
Great. So does this mean we get to stop giving aid to foreign countries too?
Sorry to reply to my own post, but a citation helps.
The mutually assured destruction idea from the Cold War almost became a reality multiple times do to various "oopses" during that period. It was largely because of a discomforting amount of dumb luck that it didn't end really really badly.
Even if that were the case, why must it be our job to fix it? We're war-weary because of trying to fix too many of the world's problems to begin with. Or, more accurately, pretending to fix the world's problems in order to ensure a complex web of international relations stays on track to keep the US economy humming along.
A government is meant to be concerned with the citizens of their governed. A dictator from another country gassing his own people should not be its concern.
Yeah, any population that considers 5 cookies or 2 bottles of Gatorade to be an insignificant amount of food is going to have a weight problem. Just the thought of that much in addition to my normal diet over the course of a day makes me slightly ill.
Sure, but we have much better understanding regarding how the laws of motion work than the mechanics of consciousness, which isn't much better than hand-waving in comparison. To have a detailed model work in several instances, and have the same results due to a different mechanism in others would be a much less believable coincidence than with consciousness.
The laws of motion are also very good in that it is a very simple model that can be extended to describe seemingly complicated phenomenon. Consciousness at this point seems complicated and is not well understood. It would be much simpler, in some sense, to assume that everyone else is a philosophical zombie without having to appeal to the idea of consciousness. In another sense, they look/behave just the same as me, so why me and not them?
I think one of the big questions about consciousness is in what sense it is "real", besides the subjective experience. (Or the ability to have a subjective experience). What are the essential qualities needed for such an emergent process to exist?
There are some non-junk non-New Agey type theories about the universe in some sense being conscious (labeled Panpsychism), though I don't buy into them personally. The argument is that all objects have some level of consciousness, some more than others due to some kind of emergence from complexity. But, again, what the exact conditions these are that increase the level of consciousness is the big question.
But we've confirmed that the laws of motion apply to every planetary body we've bothered to test against them. It started with the moon*, where Newton used his newly-invented calculus to verify that the its motion would match the predictions of his theory.
That anyone else besides myself is conscious is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one.
*Yeah, not a "planetary body", but still applies.
Yeah, pretty much.
That or you could just bash your head against a brick wall until you begin to taste brain. Using Windows 3.1/3.11 felt about the same.