Re:Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics
on
Google's new toys
·
· Score: 1
I've seen that site some time ago. It's actually a very interesting and informative site on Semiconductor Physics. The Britany pictures just a minor nuissance.
You are right to clarify my assertions on what Nietzche did himself directly aver, as he did not (as far as I know) explicitly state the Mind as deterministic. I, as everyone, should be carefull to make broad sweeping statements in the space of a few sentances. This response may not be much better, as I do not have the time required to explore this subject with the appropriate depth.
Be that as it may, here is a brief attempt at reconcilliation.
First, We are in agreement that Nietzche believed that the universe was deterministic, and therefore he allowed for no free-will.
I disagree however, that this was merely an expression of "amor fati". Certainly, "amor fati" is involved in his assertion of a Deterministic Universe. However, "amor fati" is a reconcilliation with his Darwinian Wordview that is determinism. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_scho.htm l).
I am inclined to believe that the Amor Fati, stems partly from Neitsche's loathing of Kantian morality which can be seen in Neitzsche's note to "Free Spirits" as a preface to _Human, All too Human_ (I forget the actual section name). I will also breifly explain (later) how this "amor fati" is an attempt at establishing consistancy within his doctrine.
Neitsche's belief in Determinism is very much a scientific assertion. It is not a scientific assertion in that he arrives at the conclusion in a scientific manner (it is, after all, untestable). However, it is an assertion made in the spirit of Scientific Reasoning. It is the very culmination of a scientific world-view.
This brings me to another point, which is somewhat contrary to your statement: He would be more accuratly characterized as a Fatalist. Perhaps, but at heart he is a Naturalist ( http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/green/in tro.html). Naturalism leads one naturally (pun intended) to Fatalism due to the nature of science itself, but Neitzsche was also a humanist. This Fatalist/Humanist duality is typically seen as an inconsistancy of Nietzsche's philosophy, but the "amor fati" which you are so ready to bring up is, in fact, an attempt to reconcile this inconsistancy. However, Nietzsche also embraced such contradictions as "the very enterprise of philosophy" (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/green/i ntro.html).
Now, by not allowing for free-will he, in essence, called the mind deterministic. What else does it mean not to possess will, but to be determined by one's stimuli? Furthermore, by machine I meant simply something that is deterministic. I beileve that when one speaks abstractly, this is the sense typically meant. In this manner, anything which is deterministic is a machine. Therefore, a deterministic mind *is* a machine.
That said, I would like to end by saying that I do not know Neitzsche quite as well as I would like. However, I cannot reconcile what you have said with what little I do know about the man.
Our behavior is governed not only by the higher logic of our brain, but also by millions of years of bizarre -- often obsolete -- instincts.
Please elaborate on what you mean by instinct. How does this differ from any other algorithm? Certainly it was created by evolutionary processes, but we can also conceive of an algorithm where the algorithm itself is compartmentalized and acteded upon by a Genetic Algorithm, thus simulating evolution. We may not expect the resulting algorithm to be very usefull due to the complexity/nuances of selection, yet it should certainly do something.
If you yanked a brain out of a body and hooked it to a computer, it would no longer be truly human because of the lack of hormonal responses that come from every part of the body.
A couple of points:
1) What is human? You have not defined what it is to be human, therefore, it becomes impossible to say unequivocally what it is NOT to be human.
2) Hormonal responses can be looked at in a variety of ways: 1) Such responses, in fact, are simply another stimulus. We would expect any intelligent machine to react differently under a different set of stimuli.
2) The endocrine system also comprises the machine that is "human intelligence" and by removing a part of the machine, we, in effect, cripple it.
As a final point, we are not interested in Human machines per se. Simply machine that are human-like, primarily intelligent in a manner that we may communicate with them and share a semblance of understanding.
this is not generally established. Some still believe the "computational theory of the mind" holds true. That is, the mind is simply a machine, albeit more complicated that any modern computer. Nietzsche believed this was true, and from this deduced that humans cannot be held responsible for their actions as they are deterministic.
From the language in the ammendment itself, I take it to be a guard against an abusive govenment. Keep in mind that many of these ammendments were passed because of the experiences that America had with England... In this manner citizens should be allowed to arm so that the government remains unaccountable.
In that case, I owe you an apology.
However, I still think it may be a bit much to say that he's turned modern thought or literature on it's side.
I reserve such labels for folks like Friedrich Nietzsche, James Joyce, and Vladimir Nabakov.
I have not read Lem, so my bias may be unfounded... but I may read him if I can ever get through my ever growing list of books to read. I expect that I will get to reading him when I actually read another literary writer who quotes him as an influence.
Unless you are a big game freak or a geek (like most of us), people just don't need that much computing power.
Of course, one doesn't need the top of the line computing power since computers have been able to play high-quality full-screen movies.
It was multimedia that fueled the need for better hardware in the 90's.
There may be a new medium that will take over from here, but I don't see it on the horizon yet.
I think people will become more interested in longevity now, more than anything else.
I'm responding to a couple of levels of posts at once here, but here goes...
First off, traditionally, the purpose of laws has been widely held as *both* to deter people from actions (i.e. make an example out of), and to punish (i.e. justice). Particularly if the offense is heinous, the public often demands such justice (i.e. legal recourse/revenge). This is traditionally considered well and proper, the universe considered to be in accord, where the "bad" go punished and the rest are pampered.
[snip]
Much as I hate to say it, this government is becoming less and less representative of the people as a whole.
Two points in response to this:
First, democracy is not mob rule. Democracy is protection of individual liberties.
Second, both are absent in the current environment.
I would like to point out how what the US is currently experiencing has been repeated throughout history. With the advent of every new industry (look at industrialization in america) these abuses spring up. The only problem is, we don't have anyone like the progressives to take care of us now. Perhaps we'll see the greens eventually play the role the progressives did back in the day. I only wonder how long it will take to reign in the corporations (or if it will even happen this time).
I'm not familiar with the person in question, but I know the attitude, and I agree whole-heartedly. It's made it so that I can't stand to use UseNet, no matter what the group. You *will* run into freaks like these, and there is no use in trying to present an argument or to extract an argument out of these people so that you can understand the issue at hand. These attitudes destroy academia and investigative thinking.
I had even ran into an individual IRL who had this genius complex as he was trying to sell me on an Open Source project he was working on. He was so unbearable I don't want to work with.
To people with such complexes, I suggest you have them read Nietzsche. He has a lot to say about "the cult of the genius". Though I disagree with him on many counts and feel he suffered from the same delusions he denounced, I have to agree with his reasoning in this matter.
He may have mentioned this in serveral of his writings, but in particular, I am referencing _Human, all too Human_.
At which point exactly do we call an life ?
Definition of life
Quoting
http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/9a.h tml
(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.
(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.
Although not every rule is hard an fast, these rules are a good measure. You may still complain that there may be room for uncertainty in certain contrived instances, yet should that be surprising as the conception of life is an artifical construct? It's an idea we've invented to separate ourselves from dirt.
I've had asked this question before but never received a good answer.
If it was a good question, then you'd get a good answer. As it stands, the question doesn't real mean anything, except in how you define "God" which is really quite arbitrary.
"The more you restrict freedom of choice, the more actions become criminal. And doesn't organize crime really take a foothold when undue restrictions are imposed upon the masses? The Prohibition in the United States is/was a pretty stark example."
I can think of a more recent example...
Oppressive regime (Taliban) --> Organized crime (Al Qaida)
Of course one can argue that they were in cahoots, so this doesn't count... but it's not as if entire U.S. cities were ever under the influence of mobsters.
Ssh... The Pendergast machine and Tammany Hall were only fabricated by the CIA.
This is mostly a repost of a comment I posted on the Indymedia NL website, but here it is for the slashdotters...
A comment on the Indymedia NL webstite state that: This ruling [will] have severe consequences for every person or organisation that has placed links on the Internet.
Definately, It does. Now, I wonder shouldnt Indymedia NL, or other vigilantes (wink), now take this to the very people involved? Namely Deutsche Bahn and any Websites that may exist for the Nertherlands legal system. Perhaps it can be discovered that they too, have indirect links to the banned materials? This may take some searching, and if I knew some German, I would do this myself. Of course, if anything was found as such Indymedial NL should be made aware.
So perhaps, if the very legal system or even the plantiffs can be found to be guilty of the same action Indymedia NL has been penalized for, perhaps the ruling can be showed for what it is. Inane.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen that site some time ago. It's actually a very interesting and informative site on Semiconductor Physics. The Britany pictures just a minor nuissance.
You are right to clarify my assertions on what Nietzche did himself directly aver, as he did not (as far as I know) explicitly state the Mind as deterministic. I, as everyone, should be carefull to make broad sweeping statements in the space of a few sentances. This response may not be much better, as I do not have the time required to explore this subject with the appropriate depth.
m l).
n tro.html). Naturalism leads one naturally (pun intended) to Fatalism due to the nature of science itself, but Neitzsche was also a humanist. This Fatalist/Humanist duality is typically seen as an inconsistancy of Nietzsche's philosophy, but the "amor fati" which you are so ready to bring up is, in fact, an attempt to reconcile this inconsistancy. However, Nietzsche also embraced such contradictions as "the very enterprise of philosophy" (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/green/i ntro.html).
Be that as it may, here is a brief attempt at reconcilliation.
First, We are in agreement that Nietzche believed that the universe was deterministic, and therefore he allowed for no free-will.
I disagree however, that this was merely an expression of "amor fati". Certainly, "amor fati" is involved in his assertion of a Deterministic Universe. However, "amor fati" is a reconcilliation with his Darwinian Wordview that is determinism. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_scho.ht
I am inclined to believe that the Amor Fati, stems partly from Neitsche's loathing of Kantian morality which can be seen in Neitzsche's note to "Free Spirits" as a preface to _Human, All too Human_ (I forget the actual section name). I will also breifly explain (later) how this "amor fati" is an attempt at establishing consistancy within his doctrine.
Neitsche's belief in Determinism is very much a scientific assertion. It is not a scientific assertion in that he arrives at the conclusion in a scientific manner (it is, after all, untestable). However, it is an assertion made in the spirit of Scientific Reasoning. It is the very culmination of a scientific world-view.
This brings me to another point, which is somewhat contrary to your statement: He would be more accuratly characterized as a Fatalist. Perhaps, but at heart he is a Naturalist ( http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/green/i
Now, by not allowing for free-will he, in essence, called the mind deterministic. What else does it mean not to possess will, but to be determined by one's stimuli? Furthermore, by machine I meant simply something that is deterministic. I beileve that when one speaks abstractly, this is the sense typically meant. In this manner, anything which is deterministic is a machine. Therefore, a deterministic mind *is* a machine.
That said, I would like to end by saying that I do not know Neitzsche quite as well as I would like. However, I cannot reconcile what you have said with what little I do know about the man.
Our behavior is governed not only by the higher logic of our brain, but also by millions of years of bizarre -- often obsolete -- instincts.
Please elaborate on what you mean by instinct. How does this differ from any other algorithm? Certainly it was created by evolutionary processes, but we can also conceive of an algorithm where the algorithm itself is compartmentalized and acteded upon by a Genetic Algorithm, thus simulating evolution. We may not expect the resulting algorithm to be very usefull due to the complexity/nuances of selection, yet it should certainly do something.
If you yanked a brain out of a body and hooked it to a computer, it would no longer be truly human because of the lack of hormonal responses that come from every part of the body.
A couple of points:
1) What is human? You have not defined what it is to be human, therefore, it becomes impossible to say unequivocally what it is NOT to be human. 2) Hormonal responses can be looked at in a variety of ways: 1) Such responses, in fact, are simply another stimulus. We would expect any intelligent machine to react differently under a different set of stimuli.
2) The endocrine system also comprises the machine that is "human intelligence" and by removing a part of the machine, we, in effect, cripple it.
As a final point, we are not interested in Human machines per se. Simply machine that are human-like, primarily intelligent in a manner that we may communicate with them and share a semblance of understanding.
this is not generally established. Some still believe the "computational theory of the mind" holds true. That is, the mind is simply a machine, albeit more complicated that any modern computer. Nietzsche believed this was true, and from this deduced that humans cannot be held responsible for their actions as they are deterministic.
that should be http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment02/
A short unbiased discussion on what exactly the second ammendment protects:
m endment02/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
From the language in the ammendment itself, I take it to be a guard against an abusive govenment. Keep in mind that many of these ammendments were passed because of the experiences that America had with England... In this manner citizens should be allowed to arm so that the government remains unaccountable.
Of course by thrid you mean second.
As a side note... I do plan to see if any others I do know and recognize as worthwhile authors mention Lem.
In that case, I owe you an apology. However, I still think it may be a bit much to say that he's turned modern thought or literature on it's side. I reserve such labels for folks like Friedrich Nietzsche, James Joyce, and Vladimir Nabakov. I have not read Lem, so my bias may be unfounded... but I may read him if I can ever get through my ever growing list of books to read. I expect that I will get to reading him when I actually read another literary writer who quotes him as an influence.
Lem is arguably the greatest artist science-fiction has ever had.
Not to be snide, but aren't you forgetting notable "science-fiction" artists like Aldous Huxley, Ray Bradbury, George Orwell, and Robert Heinlien?
Can you serious make such a comparison with a straight face?
so most compression algorithms wouldn't be able to do much with it.
Except of course for Packed BCD. Not so much a compression algorithm as representation, but this would effectively cut the storage size in half.
Unless you are a big game freak or a geek (like most of us), people just don't need that much computing power.
Of course, one doesn't need the top of the line computing power since computers have been able to play high-quality full-screen movies.
It was multimedia that fueled the need for better hardware in the 90's.
There may be a new medium that will take over from here, but I don't see it on the horizon yet.
I think people will become more interested in longevity now, more than anything else.
I'm responding to a couple of levels of posts at once here, but here goes... First off, traditionally, the purpose of laws has been widely held as *both* to deter people from actions (i.e. make an example out of), and to punish (i.e. justice). Particularly if the offense is heinous, the public often demands such justice (i.e. legal recourse/revenge). This is traditionally considered well and proper, the universe considered to be in accord, where the "bad" go punished and the rest are pampered. [snip] Much as I hate to say it, this government is becoming less and less representative of the people as a whole. Two points in response to this: First, democracy is not mob rule. Democracy is protection of individual liberties. Second, both are absent in the current environment. I would like to point out how what the US is currently experiencing has been repeated throughout history. With the advent of every new industry (look at industrialization in america) these abuses spring up. The only problem is, we don't have anyone like the progressives to take care of us now. Perhaps we'll see the greens eventually play the role the progressives did back in the day. I only wonder how long it will take to reign in the corporations (or if it will even happen this time).
I'm not familiar with the person in question, but I know the attitude, and I agree whole-heartedly. It's made it so that I can't stand to use UseNet, no matter what the group. You *will* run into freaks like these, and there is no use in trying to present an argument or to extract an argument out of these people so that you can understand the issue at hand. These attitudes destroy academia and investigative thinking.
I had even ran into an individual IRL who had this genius complex as he was trying to sell me on an Open Source project he was working on. He was so unbearable I don't want to work with.
To people with such complexes, I suggest you have them read Nietzsche. He has a lot to say about "the cult of the genius". Though I disagree with him on many counts and feel he suffered from the same delusions he denounced, I have to agree with his reasoning in this matter.
He may have mentioned this in serveral of his writings, but in particular, I am referencing _Human, all too Human_.
http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/9a.h tml
(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.
(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.
Although not every rule is hard an fast, these rules are a good measure. You may still complain that there may be room for uncertainty in certain contrived instances, yet should that be surprising as the conception of life is an artifical construct? It's an idea we've invented to separate ourselves from dirt.
I've had asked this question before but never received a good answer. If it was a good question, then you'd get a good answer. As it stands, the question doesn't real mean anything, except in how you define "God" which is really quite arbitrary.
no, I noticed it too, but obviously whoever modded the post as insightful didn't.
no. You would accelerate and decelerate the same. It is the force required that would decrease. F=ma, remember?
A typewriter is easier to fill out one label, yes.
Now fill out 10,000.
"The more you restrict freedom of choice, the more actions become criminal. And doesn't organize crime really take a foothold when undue restrictions are imposed upon the masses? The Prohibition in the United States is/was a pretty stark example." I can think of a more recent example... Oppressive regime (Taliban) --> Organized crime (Al Qaida) Of course one can argue that they were in cahoots, so this doesn't count... but it's not as if entire U.S. cities were ever under the influence of mobsters. Ssh... The Pendergast machine and Tammany Hall were only fabricated by the CIA.
This is mostly a repost of a comment I posted on the Indymedia NL website, but here it is for the slashdotters...
A comment on the Indymedia NL webstite state that:
This ruling [will] have severe consequences for every person or organisation that has placed links on the Internet.
Definately, It does. Now, I wonder shouldnt Indymedia NL, or other vigilantes (wink), now take this to the very people involved? Namely Deutsche Bahn and any Websites that may exist for the Nertherlands legal system. Perhaps it can be discovered that they too, have indirect links to the banned materials? This may take some searching, and if I knew some German, I would do this myself. Of course, if anything was found as such Indymedial NL should be made aware.
So perhaps, if the very legal system or even the plantiffs can be found to be guilty of the same action Indymedia NL has been penalized for, perhaps the ruling can be showed for what it is. Inane.