the issue is that science is starting to have more and more to say about institutionalized conjectures.
anthropology, psychology and neurology all have something to say about the idea, formation, similarities etc. of religions. So, while science would have nothing to say about Yahweh's reality, they have a host of things to say about the likelihood of the events described in the texts describing his works, the similarity to other religions, the underlying societal drivers that push toward formation of religions, and the neurological areas that seem to respond to religious thought.
sometimes you don't need to pick apart a witness' story on the stand, if you can show that he has a history of lying through his teeth.
i think what he was getting at was that claims that fall outside the natural order, necessarily require evidence that cannot be explained by natural mechanisms.
understanding is kind of a big step. imagine trying to backwards engineer a piece of software from its machine code... but harder, and you're not really trying to figure out one piece of software, but the average of multiple pieces of software with the same function but which are each implemented differently.
yeah, it's nifty, when you can read from a chunk of the visual cortex and reproduce what a test subject sees on a screen, or a monkey learns how to manipulate a mouse cursor by thinking different thoughts; but true understanding doesn't involve generalizations.
reading and reproducing electrical signals, at that temporal and spatial resolution, is already at the technological limits. And i'm more amazed that the other parts of the mouse brain could make sense of what had to be pretty damn course signals. truly understanding those signals may well be beyond our limits. remember, each neuron acts as communication medium, processing unit, processing component, recording medium... everything really. the neuron probably has a parallel function for every damn component in your computer... and you've got a hundred billion of em.
it's different for children. Unless you mean your adult daughter, in which case there must be a miscommunication somewhere. but yeah, for children, the brain literally isn't finished growing for a bit of time. Everything is kinda just malleable up to a certain point, none of the connections are really as set as in adults. there have been cases of children losing one hemisphere or the other, and growing up remarkably functional.
you can either talk about ID as a pseudoscientific handflailing all-encompassing concept it likes to claim itself to be. Or you can talk about the thinly veiled excuse to reintroduce christian theology into US biology classrooms it actually is. ID as a term only came into frequent use when the attempts of the creationism movement failed and they sought other avenues to attempt to undermine evolution.
the key difference between panspermia and goddidit ID, is predominantly that one can find evidence for or against panspermia. Find some wierd radiation in space that will fry any genetic material like no other? panspermia is looking pretty weak, find a rock on the moon that can be traced from intergalactic space somehow? looking a little stronger. Find evidence of organic matter on europa, looking a lot stronger... evidence of, evidence of, evidence of.
The only thing that would I could possibly imagine proving the tenants of ID are finding some wierd morse code message spelled out in our collective DNA saying "I YAHWEH MADE YOU." like some crazy 'made in china' label.
Hell, some ID apologists are even claiming evolution as part of the design, as if to say, look, it's fine, everything squares away, there is no cognitive dissonance...
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -Heraclitus
not only are we constantly being replaced on the atomic level, but the damn pattern changes day by day, or physical therapists wouldn't have work.
I've made theoretical peace with being slowly converted to a machine. It's the sudden conversions that throw me for a loop. As long as it's not a disjointed transition, and the underlying neural relationships are maintained, Grandma will always be Grandma.
On the other hand, would it really matter? If they thought like grandma, acted like grandma, loved you like grandma and thought they were grandma, and had all the memories of grandma, who's to say they aren't grandma? That kind of happens every night grandma goes to sleep anyway.
thanks for the clarification, it's heartening to hear that speech and assembly are protected to that extent. I'm fine with banning certain media, so long as it is taken on a case by case basis.
well the "Rah Rah, we're all neo-nazi" songs would be easy to categorize, but beyond that? The immediate concern is music, but the larger problem is that it is a slippery and ill-defined slope from there to moderately offensive works tangentially referencing neo-nazi ideas in some way, to moderately offensive works with shared ideas with those derivative works. To just offensive works in general.
i thought it was pretty clear that i was referring to US citizens. legally, the definition of US citizen, naturalized or native born, has not changed in a while. It's only the fringe cases that there is any real ambiguity. anyone born in the United States or its territories is considered a native born US citizen and also some people who have to deal with some convoluted mess involving the parents' nationality and number of years living in the US vs abroad.
some rights are extended to foreign nationals, but the full rights guaranteed by the constitution only extend to US citizens.
i'd say it differs slightly in that the hearing of the things is not deemed expressly harmful, whereas the seeing of pornographic material is. Our police would probably arrest people handing out material of any kind at school for trespassing. I don't think they'd make the distinction. Incidentally, indecency laws are made at the state level apparently.
it's distasteful, but our constitution only fully protects us. And in a general sense we must make allowances for extenuating and ever changing circumstances. jurisprudence is written case by case, explicitly when the law is violated or unwritten.
can citizens apply for a permit to play the music in a public space?
or can they obtain a permit for a peaceful neo-nazi rally?
how nazi-ish does one need to be to be barred from obtaining said permit? what if they had no iconography, and changed their name?
who makes that decision, where does the designation fall?
how does one decide what neo-nazi music is? unless the song name is "yay nazis" isn't it open to interpretation? who decided that this music is promoting hate?
for some of us, even though it is happenstance, appreciate that the first amendment is first. The primacy of the first is serendipitous and right.
I object to you using cod as representative of what hardcore gamers play. I love fpss, and to me, the gold standard has been and continues to be q3, some people might say counterstrike, and while I don't agree with them, I'll acknowledge theit pov as a valid one. but ask any true Scotsman, and cod seriesis not a hardcore fps.
as that dude from way back in the comments quoted that lady saying, and i'm paraphrasing now:
oppression starts with scoundrels, but if you want to prevent it, you've gotta prevent it at its root. oh, and means you've gotta do the distasteful most of the time.
like how i'm all for the phelps being allowed to protest at funerals, the KKK being allowed to throw rallys and the neo-nazis doing whatever they do when they assemble.
i don't like denying people rights, unless it means substantial good will result. they got good evidence that this will prevent recidivism and we'll talk. but somehow i doubt this does anything other than deprive people of rights.
no, just appropriate punishment for the crime. I'd think anyone who thinks that mandatory minimums are wrong, and approve of life sentences for capital crimes, would come to a similar conclusion. I'm not sure how much of hardship the X miles thing is, but it should be preventative, not punitive.
children: he does make a fair point though, i may have been a overly suspicious child, but when my parents told me to not talk to strangers, I didn't. and i'm fairly sure every child has gotten that phrase at some point in their lives.
I dislike the removal of rights in any context, that's a conservative principle and i'm a lefty.
parental responsibility: don't let your kids do that, monitor them.
online gaming? really? that's the avenue for child-molesters now? if i had a kid, and they didn't tell me when they were going to meet someone i'm not familiar with that they met online, we've got problems involving my parenting. if i don't do the due diligence to figure out if this stranger from the interwebs isn't a registered sex offender, i've got problems involving my senses.
we're not talking about kids getting snatched off the corner here, this ain't no kidnapping.
Slashdot Mirror
the issue is that science is starting to have more and more to say about institutionalized conjectures.
anthropology, psychology and neurology all have something to say about the idea, formation, similarities etc. of religions. So, while science would have nothing to say about Yahweh's reality, they have a host of things to say about the likelihood of the events described in the texts describing his works, the similarity to other religions, the underlying societal drivers that push toward formation of religions, and the neurological areas that seem to respond to religious thought.
sometimes you don't need to pick apart a witness' story on the stand, if you can show that he has a history of lying through his teeth.
i think what he was getting at was that claims that fall outside the natural order, necessarily require evidence that cannot be explained by natural mechanisms.
understanding is kind of a big step. imagine trying to backwards engineer a piece of software from its machine code... but harder, and you're not really trying to figure out one piece of software, but the average of multiple pieces of software with the same function but which are each implemented differently.
yeah, it's nifty, when you can read from a chunk of the visual cortex and reproduce what a test subject sees on a screen, or a monkey learns how to manipulate a mouse cursor by thinking different thoughts; but true understanding doesn't involve generalizations.
reading and reproducing electrical signals, at that temporal and spatial resolution, is already at the technological limits. And i'm more amazed that the other parts of the mouse brain could make sense of what had to be pretty damn course signals. truly understanding those signals may well be beyond our limits. remember, each neuron acts as communication medium, processing unit, processing component, recording medium... everything really. the neuron probably has a parallel function for every damn component in your computer... and you've got a hundred billion of em.
it's different for children. Unless you mean your adult daughter, in which case there must be a miscommunication somewhere. but yeah, for children, the brain literally isn't finished growing for a bit of time. Everything is kinda just malleable up to a certain point, none of the connections are really as set as in adults. there have been cases of children losing one hemisphere or the other, and growing up remarkably functional.
you can either talk about ID as a pseudoscientific handflailing all-encompassing concept it likes to claim itself to be. Or you can talk about the thinly veiled excuse to reintroduce christian theology into US biology classrooms it actually is. ID as a term only came into frequent use when the attempts of the creationism movement failed and they sought other avenues to attempt to undermine evolution.
the key difference between panspermia and goddidit ID, is predominantly that one can find evidence for or against panspermia. Find some wierd radiation in space that will fry any genetic material like no other? panspermia is looking pretty weak, find a rock on the moon that can be traced from intergalactic space somehow? looking a little stronger. Find evidence of organic matter on europa, looking a lot stronger... evidence of, evidence of, evidence of.
The only thing that would I could possibly imagine proving the tenants of ID are finding some wierd morse code message spelled out in our collective DNA saying "I YAHWEH MADE YOU." like some crazy 'made in china' label.
Hell, some ID apologists are even claiming evolution as part of the design, as if to say, look, it's fine, everything squares away, there is no cognitive dissonance...
i'd like to know when it's not grandma too. I didn't follow you round that bend. Please elaborate.
the brain doesn't do this. what it does is try to repurpose surrounding tissue to try and reroute the signal. It's also rarely successful at this.
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -Heraclitus
not only are we constantly being replaced on the atomic level, but the damn pattern changes day by day, or physical therapists wouldn't have work.
I've made theoretical peace with being slowly converted to a machine. It's the sudden conversions that throw me for a loop. As long as it's not a disjointed transition, and the underlying neural relationships are maintained, Grandma will always be Grandma.
On the other hand, would it really matter? If they thought like grandma, acted like grandma, loved you like grandma and thought they were grandma, and had all the memories of grandma, who's to say they aren't grandma? That kind of happens every night grandma goes to sleep anyway.
toleration of germans requires fortification?
thanks for the clarification, it's heartening to hear that speech and assembly are protected to that extent. I'm fine with banning certain media, so long as it is taken on a case by case basis.
well the "Rah Rah, we're all neo-nazi" songs would be easy to categorize, but beyond that? The immediate concern is music, but the larger problem is that it is a slippery and ill-defined slope from there to moderately offensive works tangentially referencing neo-nazi ideas in some way, to moderately offensive works with shared ideas with those derivative works. To just offensive works in general.
yeah i was aware it was an acronym in a language i don't speak. My point was, who decides what is and is not acceptable, and how do they decide?
i wasn't talking about prolonged exposure, but temporary and brief, as i'd hope that the school would take relatively immediate action in both cases.
yeah, i know, but i like to think of first as being the best
i thought it was pretty clear that i was referring to US citizens. legally, the definition of US citizen, naturalized or native born, has not changed in a while. It's only the fringe cases that there is any real ambiguity. anyone born in the United States or its territories is considered a native born US citizen and also some people who have to deal with some convoluted mess involving the parents' nationality and number of years living in the US vs abroad.
some rights are extended to foreign nationals, but the full rights guaranteed by the constitution only extend to US citizens.
the nazis were pretty adamant about not being socialist, the way you'd define it at any rate.
i'd say it differs slightly in that the hearing of the things is not deemed expressly harmful, whereas the seeing of pornographic material is. Our police would probably arrest people handing out material of any kind at school for trespassing. I don't think they'd make the distinction. Incidentally, indecency laws are made at the state level apparently.
it's distasteful, but our constitution only fully protects us. And in a general sense we must make allowances for extenuating and ever changing circumstances. jurisprudence is written case by case, explicitly when the law is violated or unwritten.
can citizens apply for a permit to play the music in a public space?
or can they obtain a permit for a peaceful neo-nazi rally?
how nazi-ish does one need to be to be barred from obtaining said permit? what if they had no iconography, and changed their name?
who makes that decision, where does the designation fall?
how does one decide what neo-nazi music is? unless the song name is "yay nazis" isn't it open to interpretation? who decided that this music is promoting hate?
for some of us, even though it is happenstance, appreciate that the first amendment is first. The primacy of the first is serendipitous and right.
I object to you using cod as representative of what hardcore gamers play. I love fpss, and to me, the gold standard has been and continues to be q3, some people might say counterstrike, and while I don't agree with them, I'll acknowledge theit pov as a valid one. but ask any true Scotsman, and cod seriesis not a hardcore fps.
are you trolling? sounds like a horrendous idea, you know how much water is in the poles?
as that dude from way back in the comments quoted that lady saying, and i'm paraphrasing now:
oppression starts with scoundrels, but if you want to prevent it, you've gotta prevent it at its root. oh, and means you've gotta do the distasteful most of the time.
like how i'm all for the phelps being allowed to protest at funerals, the KKK being allowed to throw rallys and the neo-nazis doing whatever they do when they assemble.
i don't like denying people rights, unless it means substantial good will result. they got good evidence that this will prevent recidivism and we'll talk. but somehow i doubt this does anything other than deprive people of rights.
hell, you'd probably see less offensive images in that mmo since, you know, the guvmints watchin. Also, teenagers are uncouth.
no, just appropriate punishment for the crime. I'd think anyone who thinks that mandatory minimums are wrong, and approve of life sentences for capital crimes, would come to a similar conclusion. I'm not sure how much of hardship the X miles thing is, but it should be preventative, not punitive.
children: he does make a fair point though, i may have been a overly suspicious child, but when my parents told me to not talk to strangers, I didn't. and i'm fairly sure every child has gotten that phrase at some point in their lives.
I dislike the removal of rights in any context, that's a conservative principle and i'm a lefty.
parental responsibility: don't let your kids do that, monitor them.
online gaming? really? that's the avenue for child-molesters now? if i had a kid, and they didn't tell me when they were going to meet someone i'm not familiar with that they met online, we've got problems involving my parenting. if i don't do the due diligence to figure out if this stranger from the interwebs isn't a registered sex offender, i've got problems involving my senses.
we're not talking about kids getting snatched off the corner here, this ain't no kidnapping.