Sure, but it's still unlikely that there won't be any trace of fish poop in it. Of course, how you could identify the poop without knowing about the fish is a big issue.
Search for intelligence is guided by human norms. I really don't think intelligence is the focus here. Finding extra-terrestrial intelligence would be a significant leap philosophically, and this is what it's all about. I'm sure almost all of us value life and intelligence, even of other species; but all foreseeable advances are ethical, with no direct effect to our individual lives. And we're already neck-deep in this effort. On the other hand, proof of ET intelligence would have metaphysical and epistemic consequences which would effect every one of us, and also could change how we value things that are more local (possibly not in a way you would like though).
Well, if it's true for AGW, I'm ignorant of these observations which were distinctly predicted by AGW and not by alternative theories. These predictions don't have to be about the future climate, AGW might as well predict things about the past, which we might discover later (like the theory of evolution, which is also very predictive and consistently held up).
Any keywords you might suggest that I look up about these verifications?
Actually, this is wrong. The theory has been verified. That's why it's called a theory and not a hypothesis.
On what grounds do you say that? What is verified about it? Or, for instance, should String Theory be considered verified, because all of its constituents depend on empirical evidence? AGW isn't just an educated guess, it's a scientific theory, and it doesn't need to be verified to be one.
People don't like to be fooled into believing something they don't understand.
People believe all kinds of things they don't understand, often erroneously. How many people wear magnetic bracelets or take homeopathic cures?
I'd argue that people/choose/ to believe in homeopathy, they're buying a dream, which they might be desperately needing at the time. They know the deal, albeit not consciously maybe. The polar bear is bundled with a hidden deal, which they don't know much about. Since the bear (clumsy metaphor, sorry) is obviously fake, the deal is off the table automatically. I'm just trying to say that emotional manipulation that is being used is only self-convincing and might actually be harmful.
I think I do believe that people don't like to believe things they don't want to accept. (That they have to change their lifestyles for health or climate reasons, for example.) That's made a lot worse when they don't understand the science behind the necessity, which is I think where you're coming from, yes?
Partly yes. I mean, the details are probably irrelevant, but people need to be able to see clearly what they're getting in return. I'd speculate that, in the evolution debate, religious people understand that the theory is plausible, but still don't want to surrender their existential capital; however that's not necessarily true for the climate debate. I'm sure some people still wouldn't give up their lifestyles even if they knew the world's gonna end, but we're not at that point yet.
I guess I really believe that masses are very good at deciding what's good for them on average. There could of course be exceptions that prove the rule.;-)
In my sort of idealistic thinking about science and society, if we know something can be only bad, or worse, or less bad (but not good), there is not many scientific reasons not to try to change it (i'm directly referencing CO2 emissions now).
Well, if it's as isolated as you say, you're right. But there are many factors: certainty (climate science), severity of impact (involves many fields of science), possible solutions (again, many fields) and cost-benefit analysis (economics). There could be many scientific reasons for not trying to change it.
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or (b) The field is not as politically charged; or (c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.
(c) is always just silly. Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales. Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is. (That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.) Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out. That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine? how much salt is OK? does wine really help with cholesterol?)
Sure, but isn't it exactly why we take unverified theories with a grain of salt? But in this case, which I'm sure is not unique among all science, there is a risk in waiting. Hence, a more philosophical and interdisciplinary debate ensues. In such a case, asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority (since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate) and is agitative.
There is no easy way out for scientists and policy makers here and the ennui argument is making everything worse, IMHO. There isn't an easy way out for the evolutionary biologists either.:-) Even though its foundations are infinitely more elegant, older and much more concrete.
There is also truth in (b). Although I agree that it's not unique to this problem, solutions presented pose a huge burden to the public. Conclusions of evolutionary biology don't require people to pay a huge sum in advance. I find it extremely normal when a person sees a stranded polar bear photo on an AGW information site and thinks it's all a scam. A picture says more than a thousand words. People don't like to be fooled into believing something they don't understand.
The bot thing is a distraction. If we don't get our genome off this mudball we're as doomed as the dinosaurs. Sooner or later some unpleasantness will occur.
If we can't get our act together and manage to survive on earth, our chances to survive anywhere else are pretty much zero.
IMO the post-WWII rhetoric is there to make people get their act together, not to be taken as a fact. The probability of humans destroying ALL humanity is arguably far less than Earth becoming unable to sustain life because of non-human causes (e.g. impact events).
OTOH, I probably would relate myself to sentient robots created by humanity as much as some human beings that are totally alien to me. Human-operated robots could be a fine way to seduce people into investing on robotech, though it's a long shot.
There is no 'germ' or 'spirit' to be passed along, no soul to drift out of one body and into the next.
Both beings are continuations of the same being. If multiplexing never happened, only one being would be a continuation of its referred self. Just as you don't have a physical link to your previous instances, you wouldn't have a link to other branches. There is no soul to drift out, or get duplicated, because there *is* no soul.
There's always the problem of continuity of consciousness. Even if you make an identical copy of your brain, another consciousness emerges. TFA states:
> This is an excellent way to leave a detailed memorial or a clone-like descendant, but not to become immortal.
I don't buy that at all. Couldn't you say that the new emergent consciousness would be identical? That wouldn't be a copy, but a fork.
But what is so special about consciousness in the first place? One could say that the emergent thing, the consciousness, is always the same, regardless of its constituents. conscious-ness is a property of the conscious entity that is shared with all conscious entities. It's not the thing that makes us different.
I'd say that I am not my consciousness. And are we really sure that consciousness is ever continual? If I freeze and then manage to restore you, would you be another person?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but it's still unlikely that there won't be any trace of fish poop in it. Of course, how you could identify the poop without knowing about the fish is a big issue.
I looked in a drop of ocean water and found no life. There must be no life in the ocean.
But it is highly improbable to find a drop of ocean water that doesn't contain life. Isn't it what Fermi Paradox is all about?
Search for intelligence is guided by human norms. I really don't think intelligence is the focus here. Finding extra-terrestrial intelligence would be a significant leap philosophically, and this is what it's all about. I'm sure almost all of us value life and intelligence, even of other species; but all foreseeable advances are ethical, with no direct effect to our individual lives. And we're already neck-deep in this effort. On the other hand, proof of ET intelligence would have metaphysical and epistemic consequences which would effect every one of us, and also could change how we value things that are more local (possibly not in a way you would like though).
Thanks, things like "James Hansen's 1988 climate predictions" (despite being disputed) are what I was talking about.
OTOH, I would take the "hindcasting" and "weather chaotic, climate not" arguments more lightly.
Well, if it's true for AGW, I'm ignorant of these observations which were distinctly predicted by AGW and not by alternative theories. These predictions don't have to be about the future climate, AGW might as well predict things about the past, which we might discover later (like the theory of evolution, which is also very predictive and consistently held up).
Any keywords you might suggest that I look up about these verifications?
Actually, this is wrong. The theory has been verified. That's why it's called a theory and not a hypothesis.
On what grounds do you say that? What is verified about it? Or, for instance, should String Theory be considered verified, because all of its constituents depend on empirical evidence? AGW isn't just an educated guess, it's a scientific theory, and it doesn't need to be verified to be one.
One quibble: I'm not sure I believe
People don't like to be fooled into believing something they don't understand.
People believe all kinds of things they don't understand, often erroneously. How many people wear magnetic bracelets or take homeopathic cures?
I'd argue that people /choose/ to believe in homeopathy, they're buying a dream, which they might be desperately needing at the time. They know the deal, albeit not consciously maybe. The polar bear is bundled with a hidden deal, which they don't know much about. Since the bear (clumsy metaphor, sorry) is obviously fake, the deal is off the table automatically. I'm just trying to say that emotional manipulation that is being used is only self-convincing and might actually be harmful.
I think I do believe that people don't like to believe things they don't want to accept. (That they have to change their lifestyles for health or climate reasons, for example.) That's made a lot worse when they don't understand the science behind the necessity, which is I think where you're coming from, yes?
Partly yes. I mean, the details are probably irrelevant, but people need to be able to see clearly what they're getting in return. I'd speculate that, in the evolution debate, religious people understand that the theory is plausible, but still don't want to surrender their existential capital; however that's not necessarily true for the climate debate. I'm sure some people still wouldn't give up their lifestyles even if they knew the world's gonna end, but we're not at that point yet.
I guess I really believe that masses are very good at deciding what's good for them on average. There could of course be exceptions that prove the rule. ;-)
In my sort of idealistic thinking about science and society, if we know something can be only bad, or worse, or less bad (but not good), there is not many scientific reasons not to try to change it (i'm directly referencing CO2 emissions now).
Well, if it's as isolated as you say, you're right. But there are many factors: certainty (climate science), severity of impact (involves many fields of science), possible solutions (again, many fields) and cost-benefit analysis (economics). There could be many scientific reasons for not trying to change it.
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or
(b) The field is not as politically charged; or
(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.
(c) is always just silly. Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales. Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is. (That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.) Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out. That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine? how much salt is OK? does wine really help with cholesterol?)
Sure, but isn't it exactly why we take unverified theories with a grain of salt? But in this case, which I'm sure is not unique among all science, there is a risk in waiting. Hence, a more philosophical and interdisciplinary debate ensues. In such a case, asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority (since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate) and is agitative.
There is no easy way out for scientists and policy makers here and the ennui argument is making everything worse, IMHO. There isn't an easy way out for the evolutionary biologists either. :-) Even though its foundations are infinitely more elegant, older and much more concrete.
There is also truth in (b). Although I agree that it's not unique to this problem, solutions presented pose a huge burden to the public. Conclusions of evolutionary biology don't require people to pay a huge sum in advance. I find it extremely normal when a person sees a stranded polar bear photo on an AGW information site and thinks it's all a scam. A picture says more than a thousand words. People don't like to be fooled into believing something they don't understand.
The bot thing is a distraction. If we don't get our genome off this mudball we're as doomed as the dinosaurs. Sooner or later some unpleasantness will occur.
If we can't get our act together and manage to survive on earth, our chances to survive anywhere else are pretty much zero.
IMO the post-WWII rhetoric is there to make people get their act together, not to be taken as a fact. The probability of humans destroying ALL humanity is arguably far less than Earth becoming unable to sustain life because of non-human causes (e.g. impact events).
OTOH, I probably would relate myself to sentient robots created by humanity as much as some human beings that are totally alien to me. Human-operated robots could be a fine way to seduce people into investing on robotech, though it's a long shot.
There is no 'germ' or 'spirit' to be passed along, no soul to drift out of one body and into the next.
Both beings are continuations of the same being. If multiplexing never happened, only one being would be a continuation of its referred self. Just as you don't have a physical link to your previous instances, you wouldn't have a link to other branches. There is no soul to drift out, or get duplicated, because there *is* no soul.
There's always the problem of continuity of consciousness. Even if you make an identical copy of your brain, another consciousness emerges. TFA states:
> This is an excellent way to leave a detailed memorial or a clone-like descendant, but not to become immortal.
I don't buy that at all. Couldn't you say that the new emergent consciousness would be identical? That wouldn't be a copy, but a fork.
But what is so special about consciousness in the first place? One could say that the emergent thing, the consciousness, is always the same, regardless of its constituents. conscious-ness is a property of the conscious entity that is shared with all conscious entities. It's not the thing that makes us different.
I'd say that I am not my consciousness. And are we really sure that consciousness is ever continual? If I freeze and then manage to restore you, would you be another person?