Assuming that we could ever transcend biology, what would be the point? I've read Kurzweil's thoughts on this as well and thought the exact same thing: who or what would be around to appreciate or hate these self-aware digital entities (us)?
If a civilization retreated into a virtual reality beneath a planet's surface, then what interaction would that virtual reality have with the planet at all? Further, why would the death of the sun have anything to do with said virtual reality (which is now apparently decoupled from biology)?
I'm not saying that a technological singularity *couldn't* occur, I just don't have any idea *why* it would occur.
Don't know why you've been modded a troll, but I think that your comment cuts to the quick of the aforementioned hollow argument.
In real estate, there is a concept known as highest and best use of property. That concept works exactly the way that it sounds and is one of the tools that an appraiser uses when trying to determine the value of a property. In this case, the building may serve its highest and best use as a billboard and not as office space/hotel/whatever. Who cares that the building sits empty? It most likely is not heated, not plumbed, and may not even have any interior walls/flooring/etc.
Further, I don't think that asking someone to justify their ridiculous statements (without even using the term "ridiculous statements") qualifies as trolling. If it did, then count Socrates as one of the first trolls.
I had a moment of sadness after reading your comment. I know that you'll vehemently defend your beliefs and I'm certainly not interested in persuading you otherwise, but it still saddens me to see thought processes like these. Stuff like this is what I believed for years and years and wasted a lot of time arguing about till I decided to believe in what is believable.
It always seemed absurd to me to imagine trying to convince someone to *un*believe what they're already 100% convinced of. If you get curious though, then trust me when I say, there's plenty of literature that will help you understand.
Your comment being modded as insightful made me re-read it about 3 times. I'd say more but I'm too busy scratching my head and looking incredulous at the same time.
It's like reading the Iliad as a history book, and complaining about the inaccuracies. That's completely missing the point.
Fair point, however, there are apologists for the Christian faith (like Josh McDowell) that argue vehemently that the Iliad and the Bible are in different categories and claims that the Bible cannot be considered to be on the same plane as something like the Iliad. I would argue that you are correct: the Bible *should* be read like the Iliad but, sadly, the reality is that it is not read that way.
I find it disheartening that we as a species have grown so knowledgeable about our world and the rules that seem to govern it and yet we cling desperately to these legends as a way to convince ourselves of our importance.
The question remains open as to in what respect Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with mass-killing if that's the optimal DNA-propagation strategy for a given context.
How about: because the idea of mass-killing is exactly opposite to the ideas that were presented by Darwin? Darwin's ideas were that evolution works by the selection of the best traits in species with consideration of their natural surroundings. It would be a bit of a stretch to claim that the psychological traits associated with mass murderers would be naturally selected for as that runs counter to the ultimate goal of most species (to survive).
If you're still reading (down here), then you're just here for the laughs and I'm afraid I'm not that funny.
Regardless, this is an important question to ask and asking it is the first step toward your answer. YMMV, but the answer that I found for myself was to stop finding the bad in people and focus on the good; better to stop worrying about what other folks think, say, and do and just get on with life. My biggest issue was that I projected my faults onto others and blamed them for their dislike of me. As soon as I took responsibility for my own faults and foibles, it was easier to get along with others because they were just as flawed as I was.
So, with most new cars priced at over 20,000 dollars, I'm going to assume that most of the people in your neck of the woods drive used vehicles?
I only buy used cars myself and most of the time I can't buy a decent vehicle for less than about 15k (in Colorado).
I have to say that I find the disparity in price expectation surprising. I wouldn't describe Colorado (the part where I live anyway) as extraordinarily affluent, so I'm surprised at the difference. Also, I'm then led to wonder if the same used car sold here would cost more than in Pennsylvania. As far as I know, vehicle sales have trended toward less regional differences...
sorry...13K is pretty expensive for a car? Not according to any of my measurements (before you say it, no I don't have loans on most of the vehicles that I own).
Here's the problem: the vast majority of the "Americans" doing the talking are the ones that make us look bad. Those of us who are reasonable and "European" in our viewpoints and politics aren't the ones that are getting heard.
You know, if I had jumped into this conversation midstream and saw only this comment (without the obvious "Americans" term that was used, I could have easily thought that you were defending Iran.
At the end of the day, I guess we're all a little more like each other than we think.
Now everyone back to your spirited yelling matches.
12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that this is news all across the country. Major news.
Regarding the gun laws, I find it fascinating that we in the US are so eager to hold on with a death grip to our guns while other countries have been steadily eliminating guns from the general population with, what seems to be, minimal complaint. It makes me wonder whether there would be that much complaining once it was done.
The most-straightforward conclusion one might draw from this is the scope of "science" and the scope of "reality" are not the same set--even if the scope of "science" and "scientific reality" are
So what constitutes scientific reality and what constitutes reality?
To me, this argument is struggling even to begin. Your very argument that propositions are not falsifiable seems flawed. I am but a simple jackass on slashdot, but to me, I can falsify: "The world was actually at great risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis" by stating: "The world was never actually at great risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis." I'm uncertain how that could support your position that science (for lack of any better term) is unable to explain reality.
Oh, and, hmmm... what's the most convoluted and demeaning way for me to disagree...
And this is precisely why I selected it--that in fact we have no ongoing "new evidence" available. We have only inferential techniques based on a fixed set of knowns and assumptions. Much like broad swaths of anything having to do with historical events, of which previous infidelity would be one.
What you've described (fixed set of knowns in particular) sounds like a sufficient set of data that could be validated and applied to the question to try to arrive at an informed conclusion. I might be wrong, but that sounds very much like Bayesian reasoning.
Lastly, I want to humbly apologize (on behalf of the OP) for muddying the pristine waters of philosophy with his dirty ideas. May he(she) rub some ashes on his(her) head and rend his(her) clothes to try and repent of this wickedness?
...(and there is no such thing as a "pre-scientific epistemology", there are domains which science can address and those it cannot--irrespective of any "religion"--this has historically been the case, and will permanently remain the case...
Spoken like someone who can't stand for any position that opposes their own.
Spam filtering is a use for Bayesian reasoning. Bayesian reasoning is good for all sorts of other neat stuff, like making rational determinations.
So, your assertion is that it is not evil for you to form an opinion of claimed and denied adultery using the Bible? If that is your assertion, then sure, you are correct. Forming opinions is not inherently evil.
Rather than state that this is hyperbole and leave it at that, why not provide reasoned evidence to support your claim.
Correct. This is why I couldn't possibly bring myself to expose my children to religion on an ongoing basis (a little of it is good to remind them of how crazy those folks are) as I was when I was a child.
All that I need to do is remember the 20 years that I wasted as a child and early adult in the church to know just how bad the church is for humanity. It is not the time that I miss so desperately, it is the opportunities that I passed up. I disregarded anything that contradicted my misguided beliefs and did not think that my youth mattered that much since I was taught that the rapture would likely happen soon and that my earthly existence was not all that important.
Right, because once that actor is no longer making movies, they're incapable of doing *anything* else.
You're imagining that these actors/actresses make huge money and save and invest it wisely in order that they may live out the remainder of their years in idyllic pursuits such as looking at the wall. Seriously?
Fronting money for this? Come off it. The only reason that those multimillion dollar films are produced is to try to make more money. If you really wanted art, then you could have had it for far less.
Come to think of it, entertainment in general is and has been a bubble waiting to pop for decades. If natural economic and social forces were given a bit more free reign when it came to this bubble, then it would never be the size that it is today.
I love the moron who thinks that his life will lose meaning if no more Spiderman sequels are made. Count me as one of the folks who thinks exactly the opposite.
I can see the appeal I just can't buy into the fantasy.
Evidently, that line was missed by several who were quick to knee jerk respond...what can you do?
However, I'd like to address this line:
But then we can play by those rules, we have some sort of measuring stick that says this was a good play and this was a bad play. Religion does that for your whole life, my life is now not just different than yours but it's now better than yours.
As others have pointed out before and will probably continue to point out (just like I am), morality does not find its origins in religion, rather religion was created with the morality in mind that we already had. Think about how many religions there are and how diverse the beliefs. Now think about the baseline morals in these religions. Generally speaking (obviously with a pretty coarse filter), these baseline morals line up. That's not because a God or set of Gods dictated those morals and they were just interpreted differently by different cultures.
There's humanism but it really only covers your interaction with other human beings and it mostly boils down to reciprocity because nobody wants to be treated as less than average but there's really no penalty for taking advantage of others if you can.
This is reality and you take advantage of others just like I do. When you take pay from a company or person for the work/time that you give up, you are essentially taking advantage of that person/company by exploiting their resources (money) in exchange for your time. Would you be prepared to tell me that you should be penalized for getting a raise when you weren't giving up any more of your time? Of course, it also works in reverse. There are examples of exploitation that is improper (an employer demanding more than what is fair for the compensation because they can get away with it and vice versa) but that is not the rule, but rather the exception.
Religion tends to be divine both in matters of fact and matters of law
This is why I'm scared of religious dogma. Divinity has no place in law.
Frankly, I'm not that terribly concerned about greed since that is the underlying motivation to participate in the economy (prove me wrong). Corruption on the other hand...
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that we could ever transcend biology, what would be the point? I've read Kurzweil's thoughts on this as well and thought the exact same thing: who or what would be around to appreciate or hate these self-aware digital entities (us)?
If a civilization retreated into a virtual reality beneath a planet's surface, then what interaction would that virtual reality have with the planet at all? Further, why would the death of the sun have anything to do with said virtual reality (which is now apparently decoupled from biology)?
I'm not saying that a technological singularity *couldn't* occur, I just don't have any idea *why* it would occur.
Don't know why you've been modded a troll, but I think that your comment cuts to the quick of the aforementioned hollow argument.
In real estate, there is a concept known as highest and best use of property. That concept works exactly the way that it sounds and is one of the tools that an appraiser uses when trying to determine the value of a property. In this case, the building may serve its highest and best use as a billboard and not as office space/hotel/whatever. Who cares that the building sits empty? It most likely is not heated, not plumbed, and may not even have any interior walls/flooring/etc.
Further, I don't think that asking someone to justify their ridiculous statements (without even using the term "ridiculous statements") qualifies as trolling. If it did, then count Socrates as one of the first trolls.
I had a moment of sadness after reading your comment. I know that you'll vehemently defend your beliefs and I'm certainly not interested in persuading you otherwise, but it still saddens me to see thought processes like these. Stuff like this is what I believed for years and years and wasted a lot of time arguing about till I decided to believe in what is believable.
It always seemed absurd to me to imagine trying to convince someone to *un*believe what they're already 100% convinced of. If you get curious though, then trust me when I say, there's plenty of literature that will help you understand.
umm, what?
Your comment being modded as insightful made me re-read it about 3 times. I'd say more but I'm too busy scratching my head and looking incredulous at the same time.
It's like reading the Iliad as a history book, and complaining about the inaccuracies. That's completely missing the point.
Fair point, however, there are apologists for the Christian faith (like Josh McDowell) that argue vehemently that the Iliad and the Bible are in different categories and claims that the Bible cannot be considered to be on the same plane as something like the Iliad. I would argue that you are correct: the Bible *should* be read like the Iliad but, sadly, the reality is that it is not read that way.
I find it disheartening that we as a species have grown so knowledgeable about our world and the rules that seem to govern it and yet we cling desperately to these legends as a way to convince ourselves of our importance.
Gimme a T...Gimme an R...Gimme an O...Gimme an L...Gimme an L...What's that spell!?!
The question remains open as to in what respect Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with mass-killing if that's the optimal DNA-propagation strategy for a given context.
How about: because the idea of mass-killing is exactly opposite to the ideas that were presented by Darwin? Darwin's ideas were that evolution works by the selection of the best traits in species with consideration of their natural surroundings. It would be a bit of a stretch to claim that the psychological traits associated with mass murderers would be naturally selected for as that runs counter to the ultimate goal of most species (to survive).
If you're still reading (down here), then you're just here for the laughs and I'm afraid I'm not that funny.
Regardless, this is an important question to ask and asking it is the first step toward your answer. YMMV, but the answer that I found for myself was to stop finding the bad in people and focus on the good; better to stop worrying about what other folks think, say, and do and just get on with life. My biggest issue was that I projected my faults onto others and blamed them for their dislike of me. As soon as I took responsibility for my own faults and foibles, it was easier to get along with others because they were just as flawed as I was.
...That a libertarian is *never* allowed to complain about how they are treated
Let us also deride this person gratuitously for his lack of campaign funds and perpetuate the problem with politics in the US
Let us all not forget this when we get we deserve in government.
Should keep their religious beliefs and their politics to themselves.
I'm sorry, but the right to an opinion isn't bound by your position in society whether it is greater or less than anyone else.
So, with most new cars priced at over 20,000 dollars, I'm going to assume that most of the people in your neck of the woods drive used vehicles?
I only buy used cars myself and most of the time I can't buy a decent vehicle for less than about 15k (in Colorado).
I have to say that I find the disparity in price expectation surprising. I wouldn't describe Colorado (the part where I live anyway) as extraordinarily affluent, so I'm surprised at the difference. Also, I'm then led to wonder if the same used car sold here would cost more than in Pennsylvania. As far as I know, vehicle sales have trended toward less regional differences...
sorry...13K is pretty expensive for a car? Not according to any of my measurements (before you say it, no I don't have loans on most of the vehicles that I own).
So tell me, where can I download quality music that you produced for free?
Well...depends on your definition of "quality."
Here's the problem: the vast majority of the "Americans" doing the talking are the ones that make us look bad. Those of us who are reasonable and "European" in our viewpoints and politics aren't the ones that are getting heard.
You know, if I had jumped into this conversation midstream and saw only this comment (without the obvious "Americans" term that was used, I could have easily thought that you were defending Iran.
At the end of the day, I guess we're all a little more like each other than we think.
Now everyone back to your spirited yelling matches.
12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that this is news all across the country. Major news.
Regarding the gun laws, I find it fascinating that we in the US are so eager to hold on with a death grip to our guns while other countries have been steadily eliminating guns from the general population with, what seems to be, minimal complaint. It makes me wonder whether there would be that much complaining once it was done.
The most-straightforward conclusion one might draw from this is the scope of "science" and the scope of "reality" are not the same set--even if the scope of "science" and "scientific reality" are
So what constitutes scientific reality and what constitutes reality?
To me, this argument is struggling even to begin. Your very argument that propositions are not falsifiable seems flawed. I am but a simple jackass on slashdot, but to me, I can falsify: "The world was actually at great risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis" by stating: "The world was never actually at great risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis." I'm uncertain how that could support your position that science (for lack of any better term) is unable to explain reality.
Oh, and, hmmm... what's the most convoluted and demeaning way for me to disagree...
And this is precisely why I selected it--that in fact we have no ongoing "new evidence" available. We have only inferential techniques based on a fixed set of knowns and assumptions. Much like broad swaths of anything having to do with historical events, of which previous infidelity would be one.
What you've described (fixed set of knowns in particular) sounds like a sufficient set of data that could be validated and applied to the question to try to arrive at an informed conclusion. I might be wrong, but that sounds very much like Bayesian reasoning.
Lastly, I want to humbly apologize (on behalf of the OP) for muddying the pristine waters of philosophy with his dirty ideas. May he(she) rub some ashes on his(her) head and rend his(her) clothes to try and repent of this wickedness?
...(and there is no such thing as a "pre-scientific epistemology", there are domains which science can address and those it cannot--irrespective of any "religion"--this has historically been the case, and will permanently remain the case...
citation?
Spoken like someone who can't stand for any position that opposes their own.
Spam filtering is a use for Bayesian reasoning. Bayesian reasoning is good for all sorts of other neat stuff, like making rational determinations.
So, your assertion is that it is not evil for you to form an opinion of claimed and denied adultery using the Bible? If that is your assertion, then sure, you are correct. Forming opinions is not inherently evil.
Rather than state that this is hyperbole and leave it at that, why not provide reasoned evidence to support your claim.
Correct. This is why I couldn't possibly bring myself to expose my children to religion on an ongoing basis (a little of it is good to remind them of how crazy those folks are) as I was when I was a child.
All that I need to do is remember the 20 years that I wasted as a child and early adult in the church to know just how bad the church is for humanity. It is not the time that I miss so desperately, it is the opportunities that I passed up. I disregarded anything that contradicted my misguided beliefs and did not think that my youth mattered that much since I was taught that the rapture would likely happen soon and that my earthly existence was not all that important.
Right, because once that actor is no longer making movies, they're incapable of doing *anything* else.
You're imagining that these actors/actresses make huge money and save and invest it wisely in order that they may live out the remainder of their years in idyllic pursuits such as looking at the wall. Seriously?
Fronting money for this? Come off it. The only reason that those multimillion dollar films are produced is to try to make more money. If you really wanted art, then you could have had it for far less.
Come to think of it, entertainment in general is and has been a bubble waiting to pop for decades. If natural economic and social forces were given a bit more free reign when it came to this bubble, then it would never be the size that it is today.
I love the moron who thinks that his life will lose meaning if no more Spiderman sequels are made. Count me as one of the folks who thinks exactly the opposite.
I can see the appeal I just can't buy into the fantasy.
Evidently, that line was missed by several who were quick to knee jerk respond...what can you do?
However, I'd like to address this line:
But then we can play by those rules, we have some sort of measuring stick that says this was a good play and this was a bad play. Religion does that for your whole life, my life is now not just different than yours but it's now better than yours.
As others have pointed out before and will probably continue to point out (just like I am), morality does not find its origins in religion, rather religion was created with the morality in mind that we already had. Think about how many religions there are and how diverse the beliefs. Now think about the baseline morals in these religions. Generally speaking (obviously with a pretty coarse filter), these baseline morals line up. That's not because a God or set of Gods dictated those morals and they were just interpreted differently by different cultures.
There's humanism but it really only covers your interaction with other human beings and it mostly boils down to reciprocity because nobody wants to be treated as less than average but there's really no penalty for taking advantage of others if you can.
This is reality and you take advantage of others just like I do. When you take pay from a company or person for the work/time that you give up, you are essentially taking advantage of that person/company by exploiting their resources (money) in exchange for your time. Would you be prepared to tell me that you should be penalized for getting a raise when you weren't giving up any more of your time? Of course, it also works in reverse. There are examples of exploitation that is improper (an employer demanding more than what is fair for the compensation because they can get away with it and vice versa) but that is not the rule, but rather the exception.
Religion tends to be divine both in matters of fact and matters of law
This is why I'm scared of religious dogma. Divinity has no place in law.
Yeah, and other such nonsense like: "Wiring's not a hobby hire a licensed electrician" et al
Heard it before dude and it still annoys me
Frankly, I'm not that terribly concerned about greed since that is the underlying motivation to participate in the economy (prove me wrong). Corruption on the other hand...