I was refering to a philosophical (and thus stupid) domination in which the outer world couldn't influence in any way the dominant being. Any influence, unless possibly *very* elastic, would change the dominant being -- thus the self is not totally dominant, as something external could dominate (change, or become) a part of it.
Difference between self as a process and self as a state. We are process, if a state dominates...from an antagonistic viral/bacterial perspective, too much stagnation leads to modified badguys which can mutate to overcome your defenses. Thus there is an inherent (but not necessarily "good") tendency to see stagnation as bad.
What is the self (what aspects you consider to be the self is different in every being (from micro memetic differences to macro personality/faculty differences to gestalt differences).
You're talking about the "arrow of time". Yes, obviously we can't go back in time to the big bang (assuming it happened), but if the matter of the universe came from a point source, that "point" would still be in "real" space.
By targeted destruction of "fecal" buildup in cells, this can be used in single-celled and small multi-celled organisms to test various theories of aging (how much said buildup contributes to cell and organism death).
Even with "control", this generally seems as a second to total domination. It's just the fact that total domination/control has never happened (outside of a hypothetical God)..... I seem to be using a definition of "dominate" that is like a change of everything to the self, whereas "total control" would be the self having power over all else and excising the ability of all else to have power over it (even as much as the other being able to alter the self -- thus negating the ability to learn and change in this all-powerful self????).
As this doesn't seem ideal, power/"total control" must also apply to power over the self (thus we reduce in the self to a hierarchy (or perhaps, "voting blocks"/fights for dominance with changing allegiances) within the "self". Thus a currently dominant consortium could invite an external into the internal, where that new "internal" may or may not then have the ability to vote on it's own.
I've digressed too far and am still quite incoherent. I'll stop.
Food, clothing and shelter. -- Survival; Domination of self over all else (where sustainability is a vital prerequisite to this) -- thus we have predator-prey curves in nature (I'm sure an analogy with plants, archae, etc... can be made). At least domination (control) from a species perspective.
Domination of self (if partial) can lead to weaknesses. Therefore a non-dominate, yet mutable form would be preferable. Total domination of self would lead to stagnation, but it would de facto also lead to a non-need to have to mutate. It's getting from the nichefied (Nietzchefied;)) form to the totally dominant form that's the problem.
THere's also the serious problem that parts would have to be excised from the totally dominant form, as the niche-form has traits that would become a hinderance toward the maintanence of total domination (implosion ala Black holes). Would you give up your heart for your heart's desire?
Given my edit from domination to control, the prior two paragraphs don't seem descriptive.
"I don't have a girlfriend, but I do know a girl who would be upset if she heard me say that."
Your mother?
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Some types of crimes (with intent) are more preventable, therefore higher punishments are used in order to help prevent them.
Other crimes ("hate") have a larger societal impact (than just the regular crime without the motivation), thus they garner a greater punishment (generalized fear vs. fear that they're coming after *me*). Though the impact would be lighter in the non-hated populace (unless it would be felt via group "self-hatred" or fear of retaliation).
Do the higher punishments work?
Is there blowback from the "hating" group feeling victimized/marginalized? Is this mostly balanced by the fore-mentioned effect? Feedback and further marginalization of groups (ie. white supremacists) with pros and cons.
(Warning: Definitions may not be accurate) Manslaughter (Accident or no-intent with rage)
- Low ability to prevent, as no-intent to kill (accident, people will always not pay attention some of the time), and people in a rage are less likely to be able to see the consequences of their actions (would a harsher punishment make the consequences stand out more before such an event could/would take place? Maybe occasional (just enough to keep it in the public conscious) death sentences? -- prob: is unusual and terror on populace ("what if I make a mistake?"))
Intent to do gross bodily harm or murder: a decision has been made between fighting and doing damage/death. During this decision a person has (presumably) had extra time to think about the consequences (or the intent to harm has generated an association with the consequences).
Murder, Pre-meditated
- Easiest to prevent, as people would tend to keep the penalty in mind while planning (hopefully)
This could be your personal bias as to what is interesting coming into play. I'm willing to bet it is (there's also the issue that R and PS have a huge focus on society, thereby making their researchers more broadly informed. The hard sciences are the opposite.).
Clarification: As most people will need genetic engineers and associates (at least initially) to do the modifications. Most of whom will be connected together as the greater medical community is.
Given a specific amplitude at a specific frequency (such that the length along the wave divided by the frequency is equal to pi), you'd have a pi length (over half a wavelength -- determined by measuring for (eg) 5 seconds of a 10 second frequency -- of a standing wave (which may be experimentally ideal)). All you'd need to do is determine the equation that would relate power input to frequency. You could then (using a fixed amount of power, or a fixed frequency) determine pi (assuming you could measure along the length of the wave). I have no idea whether this is feasible, or not, but kind of doubt it.
This is circular derivation, but then so is the silicon sphere. It also assumes the ability to measure in a non-discrete space-time (unless you're really lucky) as there would be differing real pis in a discrete space-time (color dependent speed of light, etc...). It may be possible to use light or sound as the wave carrier.
It just occured to me that climate-specific traits such as this one may be "purposely" fluid. It would make sense in that climate/environment tends to change quick relative to evolution (Ice ages and the like). A survival trait would be to lessen the preservation of a specific birthing pattern (or make it able to vary fairly quickly).
It's even more easy to make a mistake when reading a speech instead of extemporaneously making one up. While you may have serious problems with Bush, making fun of his idea-to-speech impediment is not a rational argument against his other faculties. (Given the amount of great speakers who can't reason, this should be obvious)
Yes, I read that part of the thread. What I was specifically reacting to was you're calling it a World War when Japan invaded China. I stated no dates. (We may be arguing past each other, while agreeing on the fundmental point)
It didn't become a World War *retroactively*, it became a World War the moment those entangling alliances engaged in mutual conflict/declaration of war. This would probably be in 1941 (though I'm not sure enough of the intricacies of what was going on, it may very well be that Canada's involvement was enough to make it a World War before the US became involved (adding Russia as a state in the 3rd required continent, though I think this just barely qualifies). There's Australia too, not sure about them).
Prior to that 3rd or 4th continent and multi-nation entangling alliances* it wasn't a World War (just precursor conflicts (or wars) to a World War).
* - Some nations span continents; I don't count this as being enough to count as an additional continent, as then you're dealing with proximity.
I find it easier (and more interesting) to be purposefully non-skeptical until I have explored the theory. Then with that, and secondary information, I decide the accuracy of the theory (or make a new one).
I never mentioned when the War began, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Europe (if it did, the Crusades could be seen as World Wars, even though they weren't). I'm not even interested in trying to figure out specific times. I'm just saying that a regional conflict (China isn't even that big a nation) does not a World War make. The alliances that later formed made it a World War. This is perhaps overly pedantic nit-picking, but it's a nit I'm willing to pick.
But would a person who isn't a sociopath want to take the pill in the first place, knowing that that is what they would become? It seems to me you'd need a strong desire to be a sociopath to want this, or a strong hatred of a particular person.
If someone could be forced to take this pill to do a deed, they could almost as easily be forced to do the sociopathic deed without taking the pill. This seems to me to be redundant (unless one wants someone who can still function after commiting an atrocity; I hadn't thought of that possibility before. Anyways, you'd still need to convince them to ignore their scruples and take the pill each time (unless you did it surreptitiously).).
They don't count as a World War, just a major regional war. You need at least 3 or 4 continents involved in entangling alliances and inter-alliance conflict before you can call it a World War.
We aren't parasites; the earth is not a life-form. Even if it was, we humans are the only (barring ETs, further evolution, impact-crater dispearsed bacteria and archae, etc...) medium-long term solution to total terrestrial extinction (the sun *will* die). We hopefully will be Earth's spores (or maybe even save the planet itself).
We must not forget the death of the universe, too.
Addressing #1: It didn't get out. We're still surrounded by our initial event horizon (though VSL might have it differently -- I don't know enough about it to comment -- I do believe my statement is largely in line with pre-VSL theory), that is what makes the limits of space-time (thus enforcing the curvature).
This does make you wonder what happened to the space locked up in black holes (how the hole punched thru our event horizon (if it did, the holes in one's pants making pockets are still contained (somewhat) within the plane of the pants). It paints a beautiful picture in one's head (of newly formed universe; said universes sucking the life out of ours for their own expansion. I think I finally understand what the concept of white holes is about; now to find out whether my understanding is accurate, or not.)
Slashdot Mirror
Scratch this as Self can also contain reactions toward outer effects. A different state in RAM doesn't change the OS or programs on hard disk.
If necessary (think turing machine/object library), different components can be rearranged for use against externals.
Vacuole???? Caged/segregated incorporation of an external (to be used if needed) w/o modifying the self?
I was refering to a philosophical (and thus stupid) domination in which the outer world couldn't influence in any way the dominant being. Any influence, unless possibly *very* elastic, would change the dominant being -- thus the self is not totally dominant, as something external could dominate (change, or become) a part of it.
Difference between self as a process and self as a state. We are process, if a state dominates...from an antagonistic viral/bacterial perspective, too much stagnation leads to modified badguys which can mutate to overcome your defenses. Thus there is an inherent (but not necessarily "good") tendency to see stagnation as bad.
What is the self (what aspects you consider to be the self is different in every being (from micro memetic differences to macro personality/faculty differences to gestalt differences).
You're talking about the "arrow of time". Yes, obviously we can't go back in time to the big bang (assuming it happened), but if the matter of the universe came from a point source, that "point" would still be in "real" space.
I hereby dictate "anomolies" to be an acceptable alternate spelling, if it has not yet been so dictated. Problem solved.
By targeted destruction of "fecal" buildup in cells, this can be used in single-celled and small multi-celled organisms to test various theories of aging (how much said buildup contributes to cell and organism death).
de facto should be ipso facto.
Even with "control", this generally seems as a second to total domination. It's just the fact that total domination/control has never happened (outside of a hypothetical God)..... I seem to be using a definition of "dominate" that is like a change of everything to the self, whereas "total control" would be the self having power over all else and excising the ability of all else to have power over it (even as much as the other being able to alter the self -- thus negating the ability to learn and change in this all-powerful self????).
As this doesn't seem ideal, power/"total control" must also apply to power over the self (thus we reduce in the self to a hierarchy (or perhaps, "voting blocks"/fights for dominance with changing allegiances) within the "self". Thus a currently dominant consortium could invite an external into the internal, where that new "internal" may or may not then have the ability to vote on it's own.
I've digressed too far and am still quite incoherent. I'll stop.
Food, clothing and shelter.
;)) form to the totally dominant form that's the problem.
-- Survival; Domination of self over all else (where sustainability is a vital prerequisite to this) -- thus we have predator-prey curves in nature (I'm sure an analogy with plants, archae, etc... can be made). At least domination (control) from a species perspective.
Domination of self (if partial) can lead to weaknesses. Therefore a non-dominate, yet mutable form would be preferable. Total domination of self would lead to stagnation, but it would de facto also lead to a non-need to have to mutate. It's getting from the nichefied (Nietzchefied
THere's also the serious problem that parts would have to be excised from the totally dominant form, as the niche-form has traits that would become a hinderance toward the maintanence of total domination (implosion ala Black holes). Would you give up your heart for your heart's desire?
Given my edit from domination to control, the prior two paragraphs don't seem descriptive.
"I don't have a girlfriend, but I do know a girl who would be upset if she heard me say that."
Your mother?
Some types of crimes (with intent) are more preventable, therefore higher punishments are used in order to help prevent them.
Other crimes ("hate") have a larger societal impact (than just the regular crime without the motivation), thus they garner a greater punishment (generalized fear vs. fear that they're coming after *me*). Though the impact would be lighter in the non-hated populace (unless it would be felt via group "self-hatred" or fear of retaliation).
Do the higher punishments work?
Is there blowback from the "hating" group feeling victimized/marginalized? Is this mostly balanced by the fore-mentioned effect? Feedback and further marginalization of groups (ie. white supremacists) with pros and cons.
(Warning: Definitions may not be accurate)
Manslaughter (Accident or no-intent with rage)
- Low ability to prevent, as no-intent to kill (accident, people will always not pay attention some of the time), and people in a rage are less likely to be able to see the consequences of their actions (would a harsher punishment make the consequences stand out more before such an event could/would take place? Maybe occasional (just enough to keep it in the public conscious) death sentences? -- prob: is unusual and terror on populace ("what if I make a mistake?"))
Intent to do gross bodily harm or murder: a decision has been made between fighting and doing damage/death. During this decision a person has (presumably) had extra time to think about the consequences (or the intent to harm has generated an association with the consequences).
Murder, Pre-meditated
- Easiest to prevent, as people would tend to keep the penalty in mind while planning (hopefully)
That's assuming the last few trees went to logging. Diseases, age (could the trees reproduce asexually?), other factors?
This could be your personal bias as to what is interesting coming into play. I'm willing to bet it is (there's also the issue that R and PS have a huge focus on society, thereby making their researchers more broadly informed. The hard sciences are the opposite.).
Clarification:
As most people will need genetic engineers and associates (at least initially) to do the modifications. Most of whom will be connected together as the greater medical community is.
A very good reason to have monitoring of what is going on (statistics on changes).
Think of the technique and other knowledge that will be garnered from this. It's far more than just resurrecting species.
Given a specific amplitude at a specific frequency (such that the length along the wave divided by the frequency is equal to pi), you'd have a pi length (over half a wavelength -- determined by measuring for (eg) 5 seconds of a 10 second frequency -- of a standing wave (which may be experimentally ideal)). All you'd need to do is determine the equation that would relate power input to frequency. You could then (using a fixed amount of power, or a fixed frequency) determine pi (assuming you could measure along the length of the wave). I have no idea whether this is feasible, or not, but kind of doubt it.
This is circular derivation, but then so is the silicon sphere. It also assumes the ability to measure in a non-discrete space-time (unless you're really lucky) as there would be differing real pis in a discrete space-time (color dependent speed of light, etc...). It may be possible to use light or sound as the wave carrier.
It just occured to me that climate-specific traits such as this one may be "purposely" fluid. It would make sense in that climate/environment tends to change quick relative to evolution (Ice ages and the like). A survival trait would be to lessen the preservation of a specific birthing pattern (or make it able to vary fairly quickly).
Inappropriate word usage and odd grammar does not a moron make. If you'd like to, read the following posts by Eugene Volokh:
HOW SLATE'S "BUSHISM OF THE DAY" IS LIKE THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
Context
Tense error
It's even more easy to make a mistake when reading a speech instead of extemporaneously making one up. While you may have serious problems with Bush, making fun of his idea-to-speech impediment is not a rational argument against his other faculties. (Given the amount of great speakers who can't reason, this should be obvious)
Yes, I read that part of the thread. What I was specifically reacting to was you're calling it a World War when Japan invaded China. I stated no dates. (We may be arguing past each other, while agreeing on the fundmental point)
It didn't become a World War *retroactively*, it became a World War the moment those entangling alliances engaged in mutual conflict/declaration of war. This would probably be in 1941 (though I'm not sure enough of the intricacies of what was going on, it may very well be that Canada's involvement was enough to make it a World War before the US became involved (adding Russia as a state in the 3rd required continent, though I think this just barely qualifies). There's Australia too, not sure about them).
Prior to that 3rd or 4th continent and multi-nation entangling alliances* it wasn't a World War (just precursor conflicts (or wars) to a World War).
* - Some nations span continents; I don't count this as being enough to count as an additional continent, as then you're dealing with proximity.
I find it easier (and more interesting) to be purposefully non-skeptical until I have explored the theory. Then with that, and secondary information, I decide the accuracy of the theory (or make a new one).
I never mentioned when the War began, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Europe (if it did, the Crusades could be seen as World Wars, even though they weren't). I'm not even interested in trying to figure out specific times. I'm just saying that a regional conflict (China isn't even that big a nation) does not a World War make. The alliances that later formed made it a World War. This is perhaps overly pedantic nit-picking, but it's a nit I'm willing to pick.
But would a person who isn't a sociopath want to take the pill in the first place, knowing that that is what they would become? It seems to me you'd need a strong desire to be a sociopath to want this, or a strong hatred of a particular person.
If someone could be forced to take this pill to do a deed, they could almost as easily be forced to do the sociopathic deed without taking the pill. This seems to me to be redundant (unless one wants someone who can still function after commiting an atrocity; I hadn't thought of that possibility before. Anyways, you'd still need to convince them to ignore their scruples and take the pill each time (unless you did it surreptitiously).).
They don't count as a World War, just a major regional war. You need at least 3 or 4 continents involved in entangling alliances and inter-alliance conflict before you can call it a World War.
We aren't parasites; the earth is not a life-form. Even if it was, we humans are the only (barring ETs, further evolution, impact-crater dispearsed bacteria and archae, etc...) medium-long term solution to total terrestrial extinction (the sun *will* die). We hopefully will be Earth's spores (or maybe even save the planet itself).
We must not forget the death of the universe, too.
The worst of the predators feel no remorse; they're sociopaths.
Addressing #1: It didn't get out. We're still surrounded by our initial event horizon (though VSL might have it differently -- I don't know enough about it to comment -- I do believe my statement is largely in line with pre-VSL theory), that is what makes the limits of space-time (thus enforcing the curvature).
This does make you wonder what happened to the space locked up in black holes (how the hole punched thru our event horizon (if it did, the holes in one's pants making pockets are still contained (somewhat) within the plane of the pants). It paints a beautiful picture in one's head (of newly formed universe; said universes sucking the life out of ours for their own expansion. I think I finally understand what the concept of white holes is about; now to find out whether my understanding is accurate, or not.)