I'm referring to the term "bad guy" specifically. Can you cite a publication, printed before 1950, that uses the term "bad guy" to refer to a non-fictional person?
The term "bad guy" frames the debate in a way that enemy doesn't. It makes the writer sound simple.
The piont I'm making is that *every body* in a warzone is a "bad guy" to somebody.
Read AceM2's post where he mocks liberals for crying about the use of grenades to kill bad guys. Don't you think he would sound more callous if he scoffed at the people who cry over dead soldiers?
Yes, I wouldn't mind if you did break it down further. I feel that terms like good and bad are usually poor ways of summing up the motives that lead to international conflict. Using stock heros and villains is intellectually lazy enough when writing fiction. People who accept a children's story grade narrative to assess political situations scare me.
It really bothers me to hear an adult use the term "bad guy" to refer to a real person. It seems to be a recent American trend. Bad guys are characters found in silly action films and fairy tales.
Your example is not proof that God exists. How do we know that this beardy man in a white robe is not merely a psychotic alien with a destructor ray?
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Any intelligent god that wasn't born on earth would be, by definition, an extraterrestrial intelligence. An extraterrestrial intelligence could be considered a god if it had godlike powers.
You equating billions of years of evolution to reach this level, to a rod in your brain that makes you happy, is kinda sad. I think electrical stimulation of the brain is fascinating. You may find it sad. This just demonstrates how emotional states are subjective.
If you reject epiphenomenalism and at the same time stand by the above quote, I would suggest that this is a contradiction deserving your attention.
I don't see the contradiction. My point was that no event is joyous or depressing without an observer that is capable of experiencing the subjective effects of said event. This idea is suggested in an oft quoted line from Shakespeare's Hamlet, "...for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..."
Some people want to externalize pain, pleasure, and aesthetic preferences. For an example of this, read any slashdot debate about the merits of various musical genres.
What can a soul do that a brain cannot? Claiming that the nervous system contains a supernatural element doesn't make joy and suffering objective. How would one objectively demonstrate that an experience is pleasant or unpleasant?
Unlike mass, heat energy, and electromagnetic radiation, joy and pain do not exist outside the brain. Electrically induced joy is every bit as real as monetarily induced joy.
I hope you weren't thinking I was implying that ghosts were driving the process of consciousness. I was more alluding to the fact that consciousness might not be a result so much of organ x and cell y but more of an overall process and interaction between the physical parts that make us up.
That's pretty well established. I think it's just egocentrism, though, that leads to all the hand-waving and spooky music that seem to accompany discussions about consciousness.
Consciousness is unlike most physical phenomena in that it seems to only exist through time, but doesn't make sense to exist at any point in time. Everything else seems to be like a motion picture, things that happen at discrete intervals.
Do you think that non-living objects move through space by teleporting from discrete coordinate to discrete coordinate? I guess I could see how Zeno's arrow could seem profound to a stoner contemplating the process of division, but it never struck me as an interesting parodox.
Individual organs can be used long after it has become impossible to revive the person who used to be comprised of those parts.
Nervous tissue isn't viable for transplantation because surgeons don't know how to create viable synaptic junctions. Its shelf life is as pathetic as the shelf life of the transplantable tissue found in the liver. We shouldn't conclude that a substance is animated by ghosts merely because it's fragile.
They can sometimes get everything going again, but with the consciousness lost the body is referred to as a vegetable - brain dead.
Most people lose and regain consciousness on a daily basis.
It seems that the persona is more than the sum of it's component part.
Yeah, maybe it's the product of its parts. Wait, what units were we adding or multiplying?
If you make your machine out of materials that rot as quickly as human flesh, then yes, there is a very good chance that your machine will be FUBAR by the time you replace the parts of the system that lead to the initial failure.
It's like letting your 8 yr old kid loose in a crowded market place. Just not smart.
Wow. Eight-year-olds shouldn't go to markets unsupervised? I'm glad none of my friends' parents thought that when I was growing up. It's no wonder there's a childhood obesity epidemic in much of the industrialized world.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, it's not a 'recent American trend'.
I'm referring to the term "bad guy" specifically. Can you cite a publication, printed before 1950, that uses the term "bad guy" to refer to a non-fictional person?
The term "bad guy" frames the debate in a way that enemy doesn't. It makes the writer sound simple.
The piont I'm making is that *every body* in a warzone is a "bad guy" to somebody.
Read AceM2's post where he mocks liberals for crying about the use of grenades to kill bad guys. Don't you think he would sound more callous if he scoffed at the people who cry over dead soldiers?
Why sit here and worry about terminology?
I'm alarmed by the trend of childish terms being used to discuss grave and complicated situations.
Yes, I wouldn't mind if you did break it down further. I feel that terms like good and bad are usually poor ways of summing up the motives that lead to international conflict. Using stock heros and villains is intellectually lazy enough when writing fiction. People who accept a children's story grade narrative to assess political situations scare me.
It really bothers me to hear an adult use the term "bad guy" to refer to a real person. It seems to be a recent American trend. Bad guys are characters found in silly action films and fairy tales.
Your example is not proof that God exists. How do we know that this beardy man in a white robe is not merely a psychotic alien with a destructor ray?
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Any intelligent god that wasn't born on earth would be, by definition, an extraterrestrial intelligence. An extraterrestrial intelligence could be considered a god if it had godlike powers.
I was referring to emotional pain when I wrote that, but, yeah, I should have written nervous system instead of brain.
If you reject epiphenomenalism and at the same time stand by the above quote, I would suggest that this is a contradiction deserving your attention.
I don't see the contradiction. My point was that no event is joyous or depressing without an observer that is capable of experiencing the subjective effects of said event. This idea is suggested in an oft quoted line from Shakespeare's Hamlet, "...for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..."Some people want to externalize pain, pleasure, and aesthetic preferences. For an example of this, read any slashdot debate about the merits of various musical genres.
Are you claiming that my post makes me an epiphenomenalist?
What can a soul do that a brain cannot? Claiming that the nervous system contains a supernatural element doesn't make joy and suffering objective. How would one objectively demonstrate that an experience is pleasant or unpleasant?
Unlike mass, heat energy, and electromagnetic radiation, joy and pain do not exist outside the brain. Electrically induced joy is every bit as real as monetarily induced joy.
I don't think that consciousness is unique merely because it's a process.
It's interesting to treat time as just another spatial dimension.
Time is a dimension, but it doesn't take up space.
What effects could that have on consciousness?
Consciousness couldn't exist without time.
Is consciousness only possible with the arrow of time pointing in a single direction?
Time is just one damn thing after another.
I hope you weren't thinking I was implying that ghosts were driving the process of consciousness. I was more alluding to the fact that consciousness might not be a result so much of organ x and cell y but more of an overall process and interaction between the physical parts that make us up.
That's pretty well established. I think it's just egocentrism, though, that leads to all the hand-waving and spooky music that seem to accompany discussions about consciousness.
Consciousness is unlike most physical phenomena in that it seems to only exist through time, but doesn't make sense to exist at any point in time. Everything else seems to be like a motion picture, things that happen at discrete intervals.
Do you think that non-living objects move through space by teleporting from discrete coordinate to discrete coordinate? I guess I could see how Zeno's arrow could seem profound to a stoner contemplating the process of division, but it never struck me as an interesting parodox.
Individual organs can be used long after it has become impossible to revive the person who used to be comprised of those parts.
Nervous tissue isn't viable for transplantation because surgeons don't know how to create viable synaptic junctions. Its shelf life is as pathetic as the shelf life of the transplantable tissue found in the liver. We shouldn't conclude that a substance is animated by ghosts merely because it's fragile.
They can sometimes get everything going again, but with the consciousness lost the body is referred to as a vegetable - brain dead.
Most people lose and regain consciousness on a daily basis.
It seems that the persona is more than the sum of it's component part.
Yeah, maybe it's the product of its parts. Wait, what units were we adding or multiplying?
If you make your machine out of materials that rot as quickly as human flesh, then yes, there is a very good chance that your machine will be FUBAR by the time you replace the parts of the system that lead to the initial failure.
Spam is not a form of viral marketing.
What makes you think that everyone will have access to recombinant technologies? Do you really think that we would all choose to have the same genes?
Digital Divide? I think you meant to say uncanny valley.
You are allowed to randomly slap genes together, but you're supposed to do it using conventional IVF or sex, not recombinant technology.
Do you think that self-discipline is especially malleable? Are you familiar with the concept of hyperbolic discounting and intertemporal bargaining?
Ghadafi is not white.
Muammar al-Gaddafi is not white? Then what race is he?
It's like letting your 8 yr old kid loose in a crowded market place. Just not smart.
Wow. Eight-year-olds shouldn't go to markets unsupervised? I'm glad none of my friends' parents thought that when I was growing up. It's no wonder there's a childhood obesity epidemic in much of the industrialized world.
I think Chanc_Gorkon is more afraid of masturbation.
What's the best OS X feed reader to use with FeedTree? I don't care for the way Safari handles RSS.