It's interesting that GP was modded Troll. Maybe poor wording, but what he's hinting at is valid, even after your argument (which I agree to in specific details but not as a whole). Hell, I know people who were victims of suicide bombings (from when a Synagogue was destroyed across the street from my apartment) that still think that the West is at fault.
Sharia and the idea of jihad have always existed. They also exist or existed in various forms in almost every dominating culture.
I have Muslim friends, relatives and colleagues, some of whom share the ideas you say that motivate those terrorists. I also have acquaintances of other beliefs that have that kind of extreme passion against other groups. Still, I don't see these people willing to do anything even slightly practical towards realizing their beliefs. People just want to see a coherent picture when they look at the world and seeing black and white is just very convenient. That's all there is to it. People I know who supposedly hate Jews and Europeans prefer to do business with them when the opportunity arises, just because they're more trustworthy in their dealings.
In short, you won't find Muslims that are not from oppressed regions involved in terrorist attacks. Also, Muslims from oppressed regions will attack their supposed oppressors. You don't see a Chechen terrorist making a suicide attack against the U.S., just as you don't see a Iraqi blow himself/herself up in Moscow. No Iranian or Turkish terrorists acting internationally either.
In this picture, I don't see anything hinting to an ideology as the trigger. These people think they are retaliating against something that happened in their lifetime, something that they think is responsible for their suffering. They happen to group around an ideology, which is to be expected. And Islam is pretty convenient. If I have time, I will try to find studies that suggest that these terrorists usually are not very religious before they join these organizations, and also some studies supporting the idea that religion itself is not the instigator.
So, it's not about Bin Laden's demands. He could be demanding anything, it doesn't prove anything. Would there be organized terrorism if the West had not fucked with the Middle East? Most likely no. Will the attacks stop if the West stops messing with them? Most likely no.
doing far more damage than good because it easily allows the politicians to say "We need an internet kill switch".
I haven't made my mind yet but this might also be a good thing. It's better they do it sooner than later, without having prepared the public enough to prevent any counter movement. There are two outcomes they will settle for, either people become so dumbed-down that you don't even need to kill the Internet-as-we-know-it (in which case you do it anyways) or people become so repressed that they would actually support such an act.
Now, if they do it now, we might have a big enough movement to create an Internet from scratch, without any direct or indirect (through ISPs, etc.) attachments to world states. Even the wireless routers we already have, plus a few fast long-distance connections, should be enough to create a world-wide mesh network, albeit slow.
IMO the best solution for this kind of thing is a distributed datastore, such as Freenet.
To my experience I2P is a really great network, I wish they could have merged when they got the chance. However, it looks like I2P will implement a datastore soon, so there won't be need for Freenet at all.
Well, I haven't thought about it very much. I guess at least some vegetarians (like me) are motivated by moral coherence rather than animal love. To me, killing animals for mere pleasure is just overkill (-;. Otherwise I'm not very fond of animals myself, including humans.
I know some vegans who dream about integrating non-human animals into humanity but I don't see how it can happen. That would probably involve some kind of evolution or direct modification (maybe not genetic, but at least behavioral) on both sides. We can't integrate animals as they are, and as we are. I don't see the point of actively trying to create such a system, but I won't elaborate on that for now.
As it is almost inevitable that humans will dominate the ecosystem even more, the sanest approach would be creating nature reserves. This isn't about ethics, but knowledge. We can't just let all that information disappear. Of course, a lot of species will go extinct (as they always do) and trying to preserve Earth as it would be without humans is pointless, so we need to do some optimization for everyone's benefit and try to preserve as much of nature-as-it-was as possible. The difference between humans and non-human animals will only increase and that's why an integration approach just can't work.
Having said all this, if there were a chance to stop the killing right now, I would of course take it. Then the integration option, at least to an extent, would be more feasible. But as things are now, the best path seems to be through self-regulation (ever increasing number of vegetarians). When consuming goes down, production would gradually decrease. There would come a point where, even if everyone went vegan, there wouldn't be a livestock problem.
This is isn't an ideal picture, but I believe it's more realistic.
My impression is, that you think that number of future offspring for certain species of livestock should be very close to zero, because for those species existence implies being taken advantage of by humans in various ways. This is what I don't really agree to. Our (western, but probably others too) agricultural system and food production is messed up in many ways, but getting rid of all livestock that ends up as human food would only make it worse.
Two things. First, I'm not totally against a symbiotic relationship between animals an humans, in which animals can be seen as workers. So maybe there can be a state where humans consume animal products (that don't involve killing) in smaller amounts, as delicacies. Transition to such a state is also seamless. But it's not very likely since "humanity" only works in a deontological manner (it's either right or wrong).
Second, I don't think getting rid of livestock would make it worse. Consuming plants is more economical for starters. So there doesn't need to be an enormous change in our bean production in order to continue feeding people. Plus, everyone would be healthier, a huge economical benefit.
Besides, the change wouldn't be overnight, so this is probably a non-issue.
Please note that the nations of the world are not ticked at the US for the contents of the leaked cables, but at Wikileaks for leaking the cables, and the embarrassing information contained in them.
I don't think this is true. I'm following news in multiple countries, it's mostly the heads of states' official responses that are against Wikileaks' actions, as anyone would expect. Named government officials are outraged by the accusations in the documents, opposition parties use them to pick at the ruling party, but the public, as in "nation", is quite happy about the leaks.
It's just my personal experience though. Is there anyone outside U.S. who has seen actual people that are not ticked at the US for the contents of the leaked cables, but at Wikileaks for leaking the cables?
In my view "rights" are given from outside (be it society or a god or whatever), and what individual thinks doesn't really affect their rights in any way.
Initially, I was arguing about the coherence of those rights (given by whomever). But besides that, aren't rights "given" by society, statistics over the population?
If there's a choice between not existing at all, or living and then being killed, then in most cases (depending on circumstances), I'd choose living, even though it implies also suffering and death.
Interesting. Not a popular view I guess, but I don't have any argument against it. Then, for instance, you would have a duty of having four kids instead of one, at the expense of their life quality?
Whatever we do about domesticated animals, it's a human decision.
Well of course. Isn't it why we are discussing?:-)
"the question is a non-sequitur, caring or not caring doesn't affect what rights somebody has".
Well of course it affects (though it sucks as an explanation). Why is your view of animal rights focused on suffering and not right to live? Because you care about one and not the other. If you are the majority, then it gives rise to "rights" in the sense you use.
If I am to state my opinion, I would say that if we are to bestow rights to non-human animals, why base them on our irrational feelings and not extend human values towards animals? I can guarantee you that the animal wants to live more than it is displeased by suffering. Pleasure/suffering have no meaning if your will does not matter. etc. etc.
Species extinction, value of potential life, value of actual life and suffering are four different subjects. For instance, the fact that one values life doesn't mean that she wouldn't want a species to go extinct. Most animals we raise are our designs anyway.
I guess your case is about decreasing suffering. I myself have never gotten the reason why I should care about suffering more than life. If I was presented with two options, living in a cell or dying, I would choose living. Why don't I think the same way when it comes to another living being? It's more about how human brain works than moral thought. I automatically feel bad when I see/imagine somebody else suffering but caring about their higher mental facilities requires intention. But what if I don't care about human lives either? Then would have the right to kill suffering people? Anyway, this is my line of reasoning, presented as an example.
Sorry to barge in; I agree with your post for the most part, but...
That said, some people simply don't have a metabolism that allows them to get proper nutrition from a vegetarian lifestyle.
How do they know that? I'm sure there are some people like that (having your condition), but probably very few.
I do hope that when you started being a vegan, you had tests done to make sure that you were/are getting the nutrition you need to be healthy, as it could be years before you really notice or are at risk from something
This sounds a little paranoid to me. I'm sure there are a lot of irresponsible or ignorant or hasty people who could get unwell if they radically changed their diet without proper knowledge, but other than that, I don't quite get what the risk might be. Do people get their babies tested before giving them meat? Also, keep in mind that meat hasn't been abundant for long enough time for us to have adapted to its indispensable place in our diet.
I'll reflect your view actually. I don't have any problems with meat eaters (or Christians for that matter), but although I am polite most of the time, I get a tingling sensation in my stomach when someone tells me that I managed to quit eating meat because I didn't like its taste in the first place. Or my body didn't need it anyway. Yeah, I must be one of the lucky ones... This kind of attitude is the meat eaters' unknowing acceptance of a moral high ground on the vegetarians' side and one of the factors that give rise to an asymmetry. Now, if you don't care about the animals' lives, say so! Hold your head up! Tell that morality is relative! Everyone has the right to their values. Understandably there are few people on both sides that think this way...
Living in fear all of the time is a neurosis for some, and psychosis for others.
Isn't that the whole point?
They were a great excuse for a paranoid administration to lay seige on Americans
I don't think this game is only played to the Americans though.
Slightly conspiratorial but, if you agree that tromping freedom is the goal, then isn't it safe to assume that if someone succeeds, or even attempts, to ease things a little, more attacks will follow to grant the "we told you so" effect?
8 million flights without a successful terrorist attack since 9/11.
Stop these "measures", and attacks will resume. The whole purpose of terrorism is to, well, cause fear, and what's better than having the State do it for you?
The best way to avoid terrorism is to live in fear all the time.
And if specialized service providers sprout up to host this data, wouldn't that be creating the same situation that this software is supposed to be trying to get away from: other having control of your data?
You'll have options. For instance, I host my non-techie friends' e-mail accounts. No "setting up your own server" needed. Some of them still prefer to use GMail. It's their choice. Plus, you could get an e-mail account from thousands of different providers, each offering different advantages. There will never be centralized control over e-mail, but it works perfectly.
Plus, this kind of freedom could result in different network setups that could, for instance, help collaborative projects.
I don't think these guys will be able to do it though. They should've released the protocol drafts and let the community pick up from there.
I'm not convinced either way. It's true that we can do more, but it's hard to make a judgment about innovativeness.
Our brains are hard-wired to think in specific ways. And these developed to adapt to the environment humans evolved in. We now have to develop technologies that would match well with those skills (or features) and we translate the information to an interface where most of these skills can't be practically utilized. This is a bottleneck; information has to squeeze through this interface to have the chance to become knowledge in the next step, and a huge portion of it is lost.
The problem is (if there/is/ a problem), that now we don't use some of those hard-wired features anymore, and we might be using the rest in very specific ways. That might mean a waste of processing power. A projection of this to innovation could be that some generalizations coming from these facilities will not be there, and there would be a loss in pattern-recognition performance.
Possibly, all of this is an exaggeration. If I was right, some of our most prominent philosophers would be former cab drivers. On the other hand, the smartest people I know are people with diverse interests and skills, and I suspect that this is what makes them smart. They are able to make generalizations in a specific area (like pedestrian navigation) and apply them to totally different areas (like computer programming). E.g. You don't lose your ability to navigate, but being better at it means you have developed abstract knowledge about it. If you lose this, what is there to replace it?
I was thinking about getting a used rugged laptop and putting a very simple console editor on it, since my 18-month-old does seem to like what comes out when he bashes the keyboard, and there's enough to do with ASCII.
OTOH, he also likes to play simple games, like tux racer. The main problem is that the software is designed to receive precise input. Any program that can't be quit, paused or otherwise disabled would do the job of letting him explore. I was planning to put together a couple of simple games for him in Blender but haven't got to it yet.
Oh really? And how are the Nazis depicted in these books? Ah, right, as they really are. Evil and stuff...
"To the victor go the spoils and to they also get to write the history books."
I think you take the above quote literally: that the victors themselves come and write the history books, print them with their labels and distribute them. Well, sorry, but it is not what is meant at all.
You assume complete annihilation or permanent occupation of the conquered. That's not how modern warfare works. There will still be people in Afghanistan who are literate after the US has pulled out. They can write their own history books.
If it was how it worked, U.S. wouldn't be over there right now. It's pointless to end the occupation before having determined how the state education would be, what kind of books will be permitted, etc. to a satisfactory extent.
They may recover from this though, which would probably mean Taliban regaining power, but I don't think this is what you meant (since the victor would be Taliban at that stage)...
Who created this law of things can only exist if it first have to go through the process of creation then?
Creation, in this context, doesn't have to involve design in any way, or any kind of "process" for that matter. Also, time-line is irrelevant -- one can even speak of time's creation. What we're basically discussing here is causality. So the gist of the matter is:
"Does existence need a cause?"
Let's assume that there was a big bang. My existence can be causally traced back to it. So, there is no "my existence", individually standing; it is a composite "situation", which is a result of the state of affairs at the bang. But can we speak of any existence which is not a result?
If the question was, "Is there a word that has a meaning by itself?", the answer would be almost obviously be "no".
So, "What caused the big bang?", IMO, is a very legitimate question. There cannot be a first cause -- otherwise the word "causality" would lose its meaning.
But it's not the dramatic reality about all this. What we are really admitting, I think, is that, existence itself is a composition of relations between objects (causality in action). I.e. "Existence is structure".
One thinks then, that reality is composed of objects (matter/energy) and relations (laws). However, our history of knowledge shows that, when you investigate "matter", using the techniques of the time, you always discover that it's "made up" of finer stuff. This stuff, can in turn be structures that are made up of even finer stuff. If not so, that means that it has nothing about it that is not in its set of relations (its properties).
So it's almost inevitable to arrive to the conclusion that what we call matter is a structure, composed of relations of things. Things which are nothing but their relations. At this point, I guess, we can't get rid if the "thing" linguistically, since we need it to define the relations.
In conclusion, it seems that there's nothing other than the laws of nature, that makes up the universe. In this context, causality is enforced by consistency and doesn't have to have a more specialized meaning.
Do we make any progress with this line of reasoning? You can still ask where the laws of nature come from? My metaphysical view tends to have an economical bias, not about the quantity of existence, but quantity of metaphysics involved.:-) So, I just accept that every possible world (any combination of laws) exists.
I've always found electric heaters (including geysers, etc. but mostly environmental heating) a huge waste of low entropy. You can achieve the same goal by powering enough chips -- would work especially well for floor heating. Now, if you're not recycling old computers, it might cost some, but if our only constraint is energy, we can thus create a supercomputer that spends 0 energy "for itself", just by installing this system to a few buildings.
You could even communicate through the power line, thus eliminating the need for a separate network installation. "Buy our @home geyser, that pays for itself!", that sort of thing...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't imagine China to help out countries where the primary demand is freedom of speech.
What China will do IRL is go in and fix things the West has broken, make deals with them and get their resources. Don't delude yourself.
It's interesting that GP was modded Troll. Maybe poor wording, but what he's hinting at is valid, even after your argument (which I agree to in specific details but not as a whole). Hell, I know people who were victims of suicide bombings (from when a Synagogue was destroyed across the street from my apartment) that still think that the West is at fault.
Sharia and the idea of jihad have always existed. They also exist or existed in various forms in almost every dominating culture.
I have Muslim friends, relatives and colleagues, some of whom share the ideas you say that motivate those terrorists. I also have acquaintances of other beliefs that have that kind of extreme passion against other groups. Still, I don't see these people willing to do anything even slightly practical towards realizing their beliefs. People just want to see a coherent picture when they look at the world and seeing black and white is just very convenient. That's all there is to it. People I know who supposedly hate Jews and Europeans prefer to do business with them when the opportunity arises, just because they're more trustworthy in their dealings.
In short, you won't find Muslims that are not from oppressed regions involved in terrorist attacks. Also, Muslims from oppressed regions will attack their supposed oppressors. You don't see a Chechen terrorist making a suicide attack against the U.S., just as you don't see a Iraqi blow himself/herself up in Moscow. No Iranian or Turkish terrorists acting internationally either.
In this picture, I don't see anything hinting to an ideology as the trigger. These people think they are retaliating against something that happened in their lifetime, something that they think is responsible for their suffering. They happen to group around an ideology, which is to be expected. And Islam is pretty convenient. If I have time, I will try to find studies that suggest that these terrorists usually are not very religious before they join these organizations, and also some studies supporting the idea that religion itself is not the instigator.
So, it's not about Bin Laden's demands. He could be demanding anything, it doesn't prove anything. Would there be organized terrorism if the West had not fucked with the Middle East? Most likely no. Will the attacks stop if the West stops messing with them? Most likely no.
doing far more damage than good because it easily allows the politicians to say "We need an internet kill switch".
I haven't made my mind yet but this might also be a good thing. It's better they do it sooner than later, without having prepared the public enough to prevent any counter movement. There are two outcomes they will settle for, either people become so dumbed-down that you don't even need to kill the Internet-as-we-know-it (in which case you do it anyways) or people become so repressed that they would actually support such an act.
Now, if they do it now, we might have a big enough movement to create an Internet from scratch, without any direct or indirect (through ISPs, etc.) attachments to world states. Even the wireless routers we already have, plus a few fast long-distance connections, should be enough to create a world-wide mesh network, albeit slow.
IMO the best solution for this kind of thing is a distributed datastore, such as Freenet. To my experience I2P is a really great network, I wish they could have merged when they got the chance. However, it looks like I2P will implement a datastore soon, so there won't be need for Freenet at all.
Well, I haven't thought about it very much. I guess at least some vegetarians (like me) are motivated by moral coherence rather than animal love. To me, killing animals for mere pleasure is just overkill (-;. Otherwise I'm not very fond of animals myself, including humans.
I know some vegans who dream about integrating non-human animals into humanity but I don't see how it can happen. That would probably involve some kind of evolution or direct modification (maybe not genetic, but at least behavioral) on both sides. We can't integrate animals as they are, and as we are. I don't see the point of actively trying to create such a system, but I won't elaborate on that for now.
As it is almost inevitable that humans will dominate the ecosystem even more, the sanest approach would be creating nature reserves. This isn't about ethics, but knowledge. We can't just let all that information disappear. Of course, a lot of species will go extinct (as they always do) and trying to preserve Earth as it would be without humans is pointless, so we need to do some optimization for everyone's benefit and try to preserve as much of nature-as-it-was as possible. The difference between humans and non-human animals will only increase and that's why an integration approach just can't work.
Having said all this, if there were a chance to stop the killing right now, I would of course take it. Then the integration option, at least to an extent, would be more feasible. But as things are now, the best path seems to be through self-regulation (ever increasing number of vegetarians). When consuming goes down, production would gradually decrease. There would come a point where, even if everyone went vegan, there wouldn't be a livestock problem.
This is isn't an ideal picture, but I believe it's more realistic.
My impression is, that you think that number of future offspring for certain species of livestock should be very close to zero, because for those species existence implies being taken advantage of by humans in various ways. This is what I don't really agree to. Our (western, but probably others too) agricultural system and food production is messed up in many ways, but getting rid of all livestock that ends up as human food would only make it worse.
Two things. First, I'm not totally against a symbiotic relationship between animals an humans, in which animals can be seen as workers. So maybe there can be a state where humans consume animal products (that don't involve killing) in smaller amounts, as delicacies. Transition to such a state is also seamless. But it's not very likely since "humanity" only works in a deontological manner (it's either right or wrong).
Second, I don't think getting rid of livestock would make it worse. Consuming plants is more economical for starters. So there doesn't need to be an enormous change in our bean production in order to continue feeding people. Plus, everyone would be healthier, a huge economical benefit.
Besides, the change wouldn't be overnight, so this is probably a non-issue.
Please note that the nations of the world are not ticked at the US for the contents of the leaked cables, but at Wikileaks for leaking the cables, and the embarrassing information contained in them.
I don't think this is true. I'm following news in multiple countries, it's mostly the heads of states' official responses that are against Wikileaks' actions, as anyone would expect. Named government officials are outraged by the accusations in the documents, opposition parties use them to pick at the ruling party, but the public, as in "nation", is quite happy about the leaks.
It's just my personal experience though. Is there anyone outside U.S. who has seen actual people that are not ticked at the US for the contents of the leaked cables, but at Wikileaks for leaking the cables?
In my view "rights" are given from outside (be it society or a god or whatever), and what individual thinks doesn't really affect their rights in any way.
Initially, I was arguing about the coherence of those rights (given by whomever). But besides that, aren't rights "given" by society, statistics over the population?
If there's a choice between not existing at all, or living and then being killed, then in most cases (depending on circumstances), I'd choose living, even though it implies also suffering and death.
Interesting. Not a popular view I guess, but I don't have any argument against it. Then, for instance, you would have a duty of having four kids instead of one, at the expense of their life quality?
Whatever we do about domesticated animals, it's a human decision.
Well of course. Isn't it why we are discussing? :-)
I also don't get why people get outraged when a dog is killed while they are themselves eating animals that are raised and killed in more cruel ways.
Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for pointing out the welfare vs. rights distinction.
"the question is a non-sequitur, caring or not caring doesn't affect what rights somebody has".
Well of course it affects (though it sucks as an explanation). Why is your view of animal rights focused on suffering and not right to live? Because you care about one and not the other. If you are the majority, then it gives rise to "rights" in the sense you use.
If I am to state my opinion, I would say that if we are to bestow rights to non-human animals, why base them on our irrational feelings and not extend human values towards animals? I can guarantee you that the animal wants to live more than it is displeased by suffering. Pleasure/suffering have no meaning if your will does not matter. etc. etc.
Species extinction, value of potential life, value of actual life and suffering are four different subjects. For instance, the fact that one values life doesn't mean that she wouldn't want a species to go extinct. Most animals we raise are our designs anyway.
I guess your case is about decreasing suffering. I myself have never gotten the reason why I should care about suffering more than life. If I was presented with two options, living in a cell or dying, I would choose living. Why don't I think the same way when it comes to another living being? It's more about how human brain works than moral thought. I automatically feel bad when I see/imagine somebody else suffering but caring about their higher mental facilities requires intention. But what if I don't care about human lives either? Then would have the right to kill suffering people? Anyway, this is my line of reasoning, presented as an example.
I'll move along now...
Sorry to barge in; I agree with your post for the most part, but...
That said, some people simply don't have a metabolism that allows them to get proper nutrition from a vegetarian lifestyle.
How do they know that? I'm sure there are some people like that (having your condition), but probably very few.
I do hope that when you started being a vegan, you had tests done to make sure that you were/are getting the nutrition you need to be healthy, as it could be years before you really notice or are at risk from something
This sounds a little paranoid to me. I'm sure there are a lot of irresponsible or ignorant or hasty people who could get unwell if they radically changed their diet without proper knowledge, but other than that, I don't quite get what the risk might be. Do people get their babies tested before giving them meat? Also, keep in mind that meat hasn't been abundant for long enough time for us to have adapted to its indispensable place in our diet.
I'll reflect your view actually. I don't have any problems with meat eaters (or Christians for that matter), but although I am polite most of the time, I get a tingling sensation in my stomach when someone tells me that I managed to quit eating meat because I didn't like its taste in the first place. Or my body didn't need it anyway. Yeah, I must be one of the lucky ones... This kind of attitude is the meat eaters' unknowing acceptance of a moral high ground on the vegetarians' side and one of the factors that give rise to an asymmetry. Now, if you don't care about the animals' lives, say so! Hold your head up! Tell that morality is relative! Everyone has the right to their values. Understandably there are few people on both sides that think this way...
Living in fear all of the time is a neurosis for some, and psychosis for others.
Isn't that the whole point?
They were a great excuse for a paranoid administration to lay seige on Americans
I don't think this game is only played to the Americans though.
Slightly conspiratorial but, if you agree that tromping freedom is the goal, then isn't it safe to assume that if someone succeeds, or even attempts, to ease things a little, more attacks will follow to grant the "we told you so" effect?
Brilliant. Truly brilliant
Agreed. But private business wouldn't be as effective in this sector as it is now, without the backing of the state. Subsidize it maybe?
8 million flights without a successful terrorist attack since 9/11.
Stop these "measures", and attacks will resume. The whole purpose of terrorism is to, well, cause fear, and what's better than having the State do it for you?
The best way to avoid terrorism is to live in fear all the time.
Douché!
+1 Insightful. Just wish they do this sooner, as drafts.
And if specialized service providers sprout up to host this data, wouldn't that be creating the same situation that this software is supposed to be trying to get away from: other having control of your data?
You'll have options. For instance, I host my non-techie friends' e-mail accounts. No "setting up your own server" needed. Some of them still prefer to use GMail. It's their choice. Plus, you could get an e-mail account from thousands of different providers, each offering different advantages. There will never be centralized control over e-mail, but it works perfectly.
Plus, this kind of freedom could result in different network setups that could, for instance, help collaborative projects.
I don't think these guys will be able to do it though. They should've released the protocol drafts and let the community pick up from there.
I'm not convinced either way. It's true that we can do more, but it's hard to make a judgment about innovativeness.
Our brains are hard-wired to think in specific ways. And these developed to adapt to the environment humans evolved in. We now have to develop technologies that would match well with those skills (or features) and we translate the information to an interface where most of these skills can't be practically utilized. This is a bottleneck; information has to squeeze through this interface to have the chance to become knowledge in the next step, and a huge portion of it is lost.
The problem is (if there /is/ a problem), that now we don't use some of those hard-wired features anymore, and we might be using the rest in very specific ways. That might mean a waste of processing power. A projection of this to innovation could be that some generalizations coming from these facilities will not be there, and there would be a loss in pattern-recognition performance.
Possibly, all of this is an exaggeration. If I was right, some of our most prominent philosophers would be former cab drivers. On the other hand, the smartest people I know are people with diverse interests and skills, and I suspect that this is what makes them smart. They are able to make generalizations in a specific area (like pedestrian navigation) and apply them to totally different areas (like computer programming). E.g. You don't lose your ability to navigate, but being better at it means you have developed abstract knowledge about it. If you lose this, what is there to replace it?
I was thinking about getting a used rugged laptop and putting a very simple console editor on it, since my 18-month-old does seem to like what comes out when he bashes the keyboard, and there's enough to do with ASCII.
OTOH, he also likes to play simple games, like tux racer. The main problem is that the software is designed to receive precise input. Any program that can't be quit, paused or otherwise disabled would do the job of letting him explore. I was planning to put together a couple of simple games for him in Blender but haven't got to it yet.
Oh really? And how are the Nazis depicted in these books? Ah, right, as they really are. Evil and stuff...
"To the victor go the spoils and to they also get to write the history books."
I think you take the above quote literally: that the victors themselves come and write the history books, print them with their labels and distribute them. Well, sorry, but it is not what is meant at all.
You assume complete annihilation or permanent occupation of the conquered. That's not how modern warfare works. There will still be people in Afghanistan who are literate after the US has pulled out. They can write their own history books.
If it was how it worked, U.S. wouldn't be over there right now. It's pointless to end the occupation before having determined how the state education would be, what kind of books will be permitted, etc. to a satisfactory extent.
They may recover from this though, which would probably mean Taliban regaining power, but I don't think this is what you meant (since the victor would be Taliban at that stage)...
Who created this law of things can only exist if it first have to go through the process of creation then?
Creation, in this context, doesn't have to involve design in any way, or any kind of "process" for that matter. Also, time-line is irrelevant -- one can even speak of time's creation. What we're basically discussing here is causality. So the gist of the matter is:
"Does existence need a cause?"
Let's assume that there was a big bang. My existence can be causally traced back to it. So, there is no "my existence", individually standing; it is a composite "situation", which is a result of the state of affairs at the bang. But can we speak of any existence which is not a result?
If the question was, "Is there a word that has a meaning by itself?", the answer would be almost obviously be "no".
So, "What caused the big bang?", IMO, is a very legitimate question. There cannot be a first cause -- otherwise the word "causality" would lose its meaning.
But it's not the dramatic reality about all this. What we are really admitting, I think, is that, existence itself is a composition of relations between objects (causality in action). I.e. "Existence is structure".
One thinks then, that reality is composed of objects (matter/energy) and relations (laws). However, our history of knowledge shows that, when you investigate "matter", using the techniques of the time, you always discover that it's "made up" of finer stuff. This stuff, can in turn be structures that are made up of even finer stuff. If not so, that means that it has nothing about it that is not in its set of relations (its properties).
So it's almost inevitable to arrive to the conclusion that what we call matter is a structure, composed of relations of things. Things which are nothing but their relations. At this point, I guess, we can't get rid if the "thing" linguistically, since we need it to define the relations.
In conclusion, it seems that there's nothing other than the laws of nature, that makes up the universe. In this context, causality is enforced by consistency and doesn't have to have a more specialized meaning.
Do we make any progress with this line of reasoning? You can still ask where the laws of nature come from? My metaphysical view tends to have an economical bias, not about the quantity of existence, but quantity of metaphysics involved. :-) So, I just accept that every possible world (any combination of laws) exists.
I've always found electric heaters (including geysers, etc. but mostly environmental heating) a huge waste of low entropy. You can achieve the same goal by powering enough chips -- would work especially well for floor heating. Now, if you're not recycling old computers, it might cost some, but if our only constraint is energy, we can thus create a supercomputer that spends 0 energy "for itself", just by installing this system to a few buildings.
You could even communicate through the power line, thus eliminating the need for a separate network installation. "Buy our @home geyser, that pays for itself!", that sort of thing...