along with the term 'creative' used as a noun to refer to a person just rubs me the wrong way. Like someone is getting away with something whenever those terms are used.
Subjective time (your experience of time) is not measurable, so the entire premise of this article doesn't make sense. You can't tell 20 minutes from 21 minutes without a clock, or five days from six days without light cues. Drugs can alter your experience of time, but not in the way suggested. You won't experience one year of being doped up as a hundred years, but as one year of being doped up.
I plan to make sure my children understand what they're taught, and are taught new things based on what they already know. If that means teaching them complex ideas earlier than they would normally learn them then that's fine, but to make that a goal in itself is nonsensical.
It was all of those things, because there was no constant stream of interruption from a gaggle (a glaring? a murder?) of devices calling for my attention at any time of day. This has nothing to do with rosy glasses and everything to do with how technology has come to play a different role in our lives over the years. I thought my examples made that implication clear, but alas, having all of the world's knowledge at your fingertips is apparently not enough to foster comprehension.
I wanted to live in the future, the future I read about, the future I saw on tv, in movies. Now that that future is here, I find myself increasingly wanting to go back to a past that's no longer there, scheduling 'no internet' days and turning off my cell phone so that I can go back to a more peaceful time, a more thoughtful time, a time with more focus, if only for a few hours.
The point is not that a certain type of projection does not change size ratios between countries (it does), but that not everything is a statement. The same map drastically deforms the coast line of the Netherlands. Should this be taken as a statement that therefore the bbc implies all Dutchmen are barely human mutant scum? No, but that's exactly what Scotland is doing.
Non sequitur: "Why should I prove anything to you? I have no more obligation to prove God exists than you have to prove he doesn't. Burden of proof is an artificial convention." None of this follows, and if each line is to be taken as a conclusion they further premises to back them up. Appeal to majority: " A billion people would say the same thing about God," False equivalency: "Or is this the best you can lamely say: "I've seen it and felt it." A billion people would say the same thing about God, but for some reason their testimony and experience is invalid. " also implicitly denies the existence of intersubjectivity, entailing solipsism. Non sequitur: "Does his blindness mean that the sun doesn't exist, because he can't prove it?" Loaded question: "Does his blindness mean that the sun doesn't exist, because he can't prove it?" blind men can indeed confirm or corroborate that the sun exists. Ad hominem: " If you limit yourself to the physically empirical, then you function on the level of a stupid brutish animal." Non sequitur: "but contemplation of higher things is noble and it is your birthright." Ad hominem: "Or is this the best you can lamely say: "I've seen it and felt it."" Acceptance of appeals to authority: "Maybe you are one of very few who have actually done science on the sun. Now should we listen, because you are an expert and have devoted your life to uncovering this mystery? Yet you will not listen to those who are experts on the question of God."
Please don't bother responding to this post. I only posted for people who are not you, willing to learn but possibly impressed by your idiocy and snide insinuations. I won't be doing so again.
It does indeed imply that math is not a science, but I don't see that as a problem, because despite not being a science mathematics can still make claims that are justifiably true. Mathematics has a system built in to accurately distinguish true from false, and it's not comparison of hypotheses to reality (...depending on what kind of philosophy of mathematics you subscribe to, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms), but formal logic. That's what it derives its justification from: it's all deduction*. Sciences, on the other hand, derive their justification from deduction, induction, and abduction (inference to the best explanation, not taking family members of scientists hostage).
*'proof by induction', despite its name, still proceeds by deduction.
First, 'moral integrity' is not interchangeable with 'connection with god', 'for practical purposes' or otherwise. They have wildly different metaphysical entailments, and there are sources of ethics ('moral integrity') other than religion.
Second, could you load up that question a little more, I think you could probably fit in about five more unwarranted presuppositions. So let's take it apart: 1. Robots are not 'humanoid slaves' 2. Robots are not necessarily 'specifically designed to get you to emotionally recognize it as a person' 2a. sidenote: 'to emotionally recognize it as a person' doesn't mean anything sensible. There is a variety of reasonable criteria out there to choose from in determining whether or not to ascribe personhood to a being, and 'feelings' is not one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... 3. The existence of robots does not entail the existence of risks of any kind, 3a. risks involving my conception of or relation to other human beings included
Assuming you strive to be a wise man, and if you are indeed intellectually honest, why do you stack fallacy upon fallacy in your post? Just at a glance I spot several non sequiturs, undistributed thirds, an ad hominem, false equivocation, and implicit acceptance of appeals to authority. And that's just skimming. Do you understand how hard you make it for yourself to be taken seriously? If you want to tell people about what is true and what is false, you have to follow the rules that allow you to determine what is true and false. Even God has to obey the laws of logic, so you should probably follow his example.
If you really want to get technical about it, having free will is not a requirement to do evil: being able to be responsible and being able to be held responsible are. But as responsibility is even more ill-defined than free will, a proper response would require an exegesis that this slashdot comment is too small to contain.
So other than the self-contradictory nature of your post, and other than the fact that I am not shilling for religion, there is also the fact that there is a long tradition of ascribing free will to Lucifer, going back to Origen of Alexandria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Please, think before you post, and then think again, and then don't post next time.
It does. Multiverse theories have been around for a long while, and until they are framed in terms of testable hypotheses (some of them never will be because as posited they prohibit causal interaction between universes) they won't be part of a scientific theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Haters gonna hate. Bigots gonna bigot. 13 year olds gonna 13-year-old.
Not until bigotry makes your appendages explode will this ever end. And maybe not even then.
Whenever Urza is still fictional.
along with the term 'creative' used as a noun to refer to a person just rubs me the wrong way. Like someone is getting away with something whenever those terms are used.
Subjective time (your experience of time) is not measurable, so the entire premise of this article doesn't make sense. You can't tell 20 minutes from 21 minutes without a clock, or five days from six days without light cues. Drugs can alter your experience of time, but not in the way suggested. You won't experience one year of being doped up as a hundred years, but as one year of being doped up.
Lying by omission is still lying.
to the public, when the Snowden documents show they've been lying for years.
These will be way too easy to tip into canals. It's like a Smart only even less heavy and more weird-looking.
I plan to make sure my children understand what they're taught, and are taught new things based on what they already know. If that means teaching them complex ideas earlier than they would normally learn them then that's fine, but to make that a goal in itself is nonsensical.
It was all of those things, because there was no constant stream of interruption from a gaggle (a glaring? a murder?) of devices calling for my attention at any time of day. This has nothing to do with rosy glasses and everything to do with how technology has come to play a different role in our lives over the years. I thought my examples made that implication clear, but alas, having all of the world's knowledge at your fingertips is apparently not enough to foster comprehension.
I wanted to live in the future, the future I read about, the future I saw on tv, in movies. Now that that future is here, I find myself increasingly wanting to go back to a past that's no longer there, scheduling 'no internet' days and turning off my cell phone so that I can go back to a more peaceful time, a more thoughtful time, a time with more focus, if only for a few hours.
The point is not that a certain type of projection does not change size ratios between countries (it does), but that not everything is a statement. The same map drastically deforms the coast line of the Netherlands. Should this be taken as a statement that therefore the bbc implies all Dutchmen are barely human mutant scum? No, but that's exactly what Scotland is doing.
This is the Scottish version of "black holes are racist" and the illogic of it makes my skin crawl.
http://i.imgur.com/1nODwBf.png
Unless there is there are contemporary written accounts available of ancient Chinese burial rites, how could anyone possibly know this?
'There's a lot of misinformation being put out there by people who don't have all the facts,'
I wish I knew how often this was actually true and relevant compared to all the times it isn't.
Probably because they added a bunch of quotles.
Non sequitur: "Why should I prove anything to you? I have no more obligation to prove God exists than you have to prove he doesn't. Burden of proof is an artificial convention." None of this follows, and if each line is to be taken as a conclusion they further premises to back them up.
Appeal to majority: " A billion people would say the same thing about God,"
False equivalency: "Or is this the best you can lamely say: "I've seen it and felt it." A billion people would say the same thing about God, but for some reason their testimony and experience is invalid. " also implicitly denies the existence of intersubjectivity, entailing solipsism.
Non sequitur: "Does his blindness mean that the sun doesn't exist, because he can't prove it?"
Loaded question: "Does his blindness mean that the sun doesn't exist, because he can't prove it?" blind men can indeed confirm or corroborate that the sun exists.
Ad hominem: " If you limit yourself to the physically empirical, then you function on the level of a stupid brutish animal."
Non sequitur: "but contemplation of higher things is noble and it is your birthright."
Ad hominem: "Or is this the best you can lamely say: "I've seen it and felt it.""
Acceptance of appeals to authority: "Maybe you are one of very few who have actually done science on the sun. Now should we listen, because you are an expert and have devoted your life to uncovering this mystery? Yet you will not listen to those who are experts on the question of God."
Please don't bother responding to this post. I only posted for people who are not you, willing to learn but possibly impressed by your idiocy and snide insinuations. I won't be doing so again.
It does indeed imply that math is not a science, but I don't see that as a problem, because despite not being a science mathematics can still make claims that are justifiably true. Mathematics has a system built in to accurately distinguish true from false, and it's not comparison of hypotheses to reality (...depending on what kind of philosophy of mathematics you subscribe to, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms), but formal logic. That's what it derives its justification from: it's all deduction*. Sciences, on the other hand, derive their justification from deduction, induction, and abduction (inference to the best explanation, not taking family members of scientists hostage).
*'proof by induction', despite its name, still proceeds by deduction.
First, 'moral integrity' is not interchangeable with 'connection with god', 'for practical purposes' or otherwise. They have wildly different metaphysical entailments, and there are sources of ethics ('moral integrity') other than religion.
Second, could you load up that question a little more, I think you could probably fit in about five more unwarranted presuppositions. So let's take it apart:
1. Robots are not 'humanoid slaves'
2. Robots are not necessarily 'specifically designed to get you to emotionally recognize it as a person'
2a. sidenote: 'to emotionally recognize it as a person' doesn't mean anything sensible. There is a variety of reasonable criteria out there to choose from in determining whether or not to ascribe personhood to a being, and 'feelings' is not one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
3. The existence of robots does not entail the existence of risks of any kind,
3a. risks involving my conception of or relation to other human beings included
Assuming you strive to be a wise man, and if you are indeed intellectually honest, why do you stack fallacy upon fallacy in your post? Just at a glance I spot several non sequiturs, undistributed thirds, an ad hominem, false equivocation, and implicit acceptance of appeals to authority. And that's just skimming. Do you understand how hard you make it for yourself to be taken seriously? If you want to tell people about what is true and what is false, you have to follow the rules that allow you to determine what is true and false. Even God has to obey the laws of logic, so you should probably follow his example.
If you really want to get technical about it, having free will is not a requirement to do evil: being able to be responsible and being able to be held responsible are. But as responsibility is even more ill-defined than free will, a proper response would require an exegesis that this slashdot comment is too small to contain.
So other than the self-contradictory nature of your post, and other than the fact that I am not shilling for religion, there is also the fact that there is a long tradition of ascribing free will to Lucifer, going back to Origen of Alexandria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Please, think before you post, and then think again, and then don't post next time.
Exactly like angels. Lucifer only fell because he became afflicted with free will.
The deductions (provided they follow the rules of predicate logic) will be valid, but not sound.
It does. Multiverse theories have been around for a long while, and until they are framed in terms of testable hypotheses (some of them never will be because as posited they prohibit causal interaction between universes) they won't be part of a scientific theory.