"...the "panpsychist" view is increasingly being taken seriously by soon to be considered less-credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.."
From the article: "Consciousness is a fundamental feature of physical matter; every single particle in existence has an âoeunimaginably simpleâ form of consciousness, says Goff. These particles then come together to form more complex forms of consciousness, such as humansâ(TM) subjective experiences." Logically the larger the object, the "more" consciousness it has. A 200t pile of sand would be "more conscious" than a person or a dog?
Essentially, they can't explain how consciousness arises from physics, so they claim all the constituent parts 'have consciousness'. Just admit you don't know something and then try to figure it out; handwavy intellectual caulking slobbed into whatever gaps exist in your understanding don't make it smooth: it simply shows you're lazy.
It seems a pretty long, awkward, and torturous way to just desperately try to avoid actually calling it animism and religion.
Look, I don't think driverless anything is nearly as close as some people assert but to simply stomp an angry foot and deny what's coming isn't a strategy - it's a pathology. A terminal one, because when it does (almost inevitably) arrive, then you're entirely unprepared.
...but c'mon. Nanny-state much? CAPITALISM, people, depends on the consumers to 'drive from behind' basically.
Ultimately, as consumers, we have a CHOICE. Call it an economic vote, if you will. If you buy a phone with a non-replaceable battery, that's YOUR decision. If you're surprised by that, you didn't even do the simplest amount of thinking about your purchase. If you're not surprised by that but you don't like that, shut the fuck up. You bought it. You validated that company's design choice.
If you don't like it, buy another phone. There are still many out there. The more people who make that choice, more mfg will be incentivized to provide such models.
Try to read for context, dipshit. The OP was talking about the Russian bots and their activity in all sorts of contexts, as if they were somehow meaningful.
Sorry, next time I'll use smaller words so you can follow along.
"Bears are not carnivores" claimed bears, when accused by the Herbivore Association of eating some of their members. "We are opportunistic omnivores," their spokesbear continued, "who may occasionally indulge in a little meat when available."
Not to mention, the constant tidal wave of donated shoes and clothes meant annihilation for any nascent indigenous clothing, shoe, or textile market...which is normally a stable and consistent business.
I like the connection by implication of high disaster costs and warming. Not misleading at all - as if "disaster costs" were a metric with any validity whatsoever (and not utterly variable based on fundamental inflation, as well as constantly-inflating seashore property increases, as well as development of land that pushes ever-further into floodplains, marshes, etc.).
Ask yourself: the last time someone used such blatantly misleading 'statistics' to explain something, were they scientists, or snake-oil salesmen?
Notice they stopped when it started FALLING...not when it was climbing into the sky, despite it being precisely as "volatile" on THAT side of the hill....
What they're going to find is why the Native American organizations have VOCIFEROUSLY fought any dna testing of other paleo-samples: we're going to "discover" that the Native Americans that WE refer to as original inhabitants of the New World are in fact just the last-previous swarm of people that came, kicked the shit out of whoever was there before, and wiped them out.*
*thus showing that they did the same (or worse) than the Caucasians did to them, deeply damaging their 'victimization' franchise and permanent worldwide sympathy vote.
Let's be frank: the patchwork of inapplicable neutrality rules over fifty different states is intrinsically NO DIFFERENT to the problems we face today of American congressmen or EU courts "insisting" on some Universalist application of a local law to the interwebs generally.
Our jurisprudence and legislation do not yet comprehend the internet paradigm, not even close. This will be nothing new, and may in fact hasten recognition and contemplation of the problem.
Doesn't it really depend on your definition of "arbitrary"?
I mean, who really insists on entirely arbitrary deadlines? That you have to have something done by Thursday, when in fact it's not really due until 2025?
Sometimes, shit just needs to get done no matter how much "a few more days" might spur some purported pending creativity.
..." She pointed to recoveries in Chesapeake Bay in the US and the Thames river in the UK, where better farm and sewage practices led to dead zones disappearing."
So not really CLIMATE related, is it? Oh, there's a SUPPOSED climate connection, but that's guessing. It's the same with the Great Barrier Reef - the cataclysmic, sky-is-falling whinging is about ocean warming and coral death (never mind that corals are one of the oldest life forms on the planet, having thrived in both warmer and cooler climes as well as faster-rate-of-change situations) when in fact local changes to farming practices in Australia had an IMMEDIATE impact on the improvement of the reef.
Simply because Norway's income is more diverse doesn't change the fact that they get an enormous amount of "free money" from their oil reserves, and are able to therefore pursue social policies other countries couldn't afford.
Except the discussion, and the POINT isn't "climate change", is it? Climate has, does, and will always change. Sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. It's **ANTHROPOGENIC** climate change that's at issue.
See, some might say you were just speaking sloppily (who would try to seriously back any persuasive statement with "...well EVERYONE knows..." anytime after first grade?), some others might see it as pernicious and deliberate goalpost shifting.
The first step in discussing it constructively would be to stop being so blindly dismissive of people that disagree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
"...the "panpsychist" view is increasingly being taken seriously by soon to be considered less-credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.."
From the article:
"Consciousness is a fundamental feature of physical matter; every single particle in existence has an âoeunimaginably simpleâ form of consciousness, says Goff. These particles then come together to form more complex forms of consciousness, such as humansâ(TM) subjective experiences."
Logically the larger the object, the "more" consciousness it has. A 200t pile of sand would be "more conscious" than a person or a dog?
Essentially, they can't explain how consciousness arises from physics, so they claim all the constituent parts 'have consciousness'. Just admit you don't know something and then try to figure it out; handwavy intellectual caulking slobbed into whatever gaps exist in your understanding don't make it smooth: it simply shows you're lazy.
It seems a pretty long, awkward, and torturous way to just desperately try to avoid actually calling it animism and religion.
Look, I don't think driverless anything is nearly as close as some people assert but to simply stomp an angry foot and deny what's coming isn't a strategy - it's a pathology. A terminal one, because when it does (almost inevitably) arrive, then you're entirely unprepared.
Fortunately, we're not all as easily manipulated, obedient little drones.
Then I'm astonished you lost your OWN train of thought.
An American university professor arguing for government intervention.
Most US professors are just a few shades further left than Hugo Chavez. This shouldn't surprise anyone.
...but c'mon. Nanny-state much? CAPITALISM, people, depends on the consumers to 'drive from behind' basically.
Ultimately, as consumers, we have a CHOICE. Call it an economic vote, if you will.
If you buy a phone with a non-replaceable battery, that's YOUR decision. If you're surprised by that, you didn't even do the simplest amount of thinking about your purchase. If you're not surprised by that but you don't like that, shut the fuck up. You bought it. You validated that company's design choice.
If you don't like it, buy another phone. There are still many out there. The more people who make that choice, more mfg will be incentivized to provide such models.
You're part of the problem.
But hey, continue bitching, blaming America as some sort of secular Satan-figure as a focus for your particular strain of self-loathing.
I'm sure that will result in a constructive solution.
Try to read for context, dipshit.
The OP was talking about the Russian bots and their activity in all sorts of contexts, as if they were somehow meaningful.
Sorry, next time I'll use smaller words so you can follow along.
Yes & these Russian bots actually were messaged to what, a terrifying 1800 people, 99.8% totally ignored them?
CLEARLY THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED.
"Bears are not carnivores" claimed bears, when accused by the Herbivore Association of eating some of their members.
"We are opportunistic omnivores," their spokesbear continued, "who may occasionally indulge in a little meat when available."
Not to mention, the constant tidal wave of donated shoes and clothes meant annihilation for any nascent indigenous clothing, shoe, or textile market...which is normally a stable and consistent business.
Because the United States is not, and never should be, a democracy.
It's a democratic republic.
There's a pretty significant difference.
I like the connection by implication of high disaster costs and warming. Not misleading at all - as if "disaster costs" were a metric with any validity whatsoever (and not utterly variable based on fundamental inflation, as well as constantly-inflating seashore property increases, as well as development of land that pushes ever-further into floodplains, marshes, etc.).
Ask yourself: the last time someone used such blatantly misleading 'statistics' to explain something, were they scientists, or snake-oil salesmen?
Notice they stopped when it started FALLING...not when it was climbing into the sky, despite it being precisely as "volatile" on THAT side of the hill....
Ocean warming, you say?
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
What they're going to find is why the Native American organizations have VOCIFEROUSLY fought any dna testing of other paleo-samples: we're going to "discover" that the Native Americans that WE refer to as original inhabitants of the New World are in fact just the last-previous swarm of people that came, kicked the shit out of whoever was there before, and wiped them out.*
*thus showing that they did the same (or worse) than the Caucasians did to them, deeply damaging their 'victimization' franchise and permanent worldwide sympathy vote.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
For example, we're talking about twitter in this thread.
That's why they'll never ban him, despite a lot of desperately hurt snowflakes.
Let's be frank: the patchwork of inapplicable neutrality rules over fifty different states is intrinsically NO DIFFERENT to the problems we face today of American congressmen or EU courts "insisting" on some Universalist application of a local law to the interwebs generally.
Our jurisprudence and legislation do not yet comprehend the internet paradigm, not even close. This will be nothing new, and may in fact hasten recognition and contemplation of the problem.
Doesn't it really depend on your definition of "arbitrary"?
I mean, who really insists on entirely arbitrary deadlines? That you have to have something done by Thursday, when in fact it's not really due until 2025?
Sometimes, shit just needs to get done no matter how much "a few more days" might spur some purported pending creativity.
...that's about double their net worth anyway.
..." She pointed to recoveries in Chesapeake Bay in the US and the Thames river in the UK, where better farm and sewage practices led to dead zones disappearing."
So not really CLIMATE related, is it?
Oh, there's a SUPPOSED climate connection, but that's guessing.
It's the same with the Great Barrier Reef - the cataclysmic, sky-is-falling whinging is about ocean warming and coral death (never mind that corals are one of the oldest life forms on the planet, having thrived in both warmer and cooler climes as well as faster-rate-of-change situations) when in fact local changes to farming practices in Australia had an IMMEDIATE impact on the improvement of the reef.
Simply because Norway's income is more diverse doesn't change the fact that they get an enormous amount of "free money" from their oil reserves, and are able to therefore pursue social policies other countries couldn't afford.
...that Norway is NOT ONLY a fabulously wealthy petro-state, but far more prudent about what they do with the funds than other oil-rich countries.
Using them as an example of anything in terms of social policies is hardly exportable to most other country's circumstances.
"Everyone knows that climate change is real"
Except the discussion, and the POINT isn't "climate change", is it?
Climate has, does, and will always change. Sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly.
It's **ANTHROPOGENIC** climate change that's at issue.
See, some might say you were just speaking sloppily (who would try to seriously back any persuasive statement with "...well EVERYONE knows..." anytime after first grade?), some others might see it as pernicious and deliberate goalpost shifting.
The first step in discussing it constructively would be to stop being so blindly dismissive of people that disagree with you.
"I can't tell you the reasons he was fired, just that there were about 250,000 of them."