Well you can talk about having a choice but do you have a choice right NOW about whether or not you wanna think about making a choice? No, you don't. Choice is an illusion in the sense that we normally think of it. This is because the ego is an illusion.
maybe, but the only real reason anybody believes in free will is because they say they feel it. If there was other evidence for it that wouldn't be the case but all the evidence what people say they feel.
People talk about free will a lot and how it feels like they can make their own decisions and how can that be with what we know about physics. I think the first premise is wrong. It doesn't feel like we can make our own decisions. Its easy to tell this, just try to think of what it feels like to make a choice. You don't know do you? You can't even figure out when the choice is being made. After it happens you think you made a choice but at the time its just what you did. This is much closer to reality then the myth that we feel like we can make choices.
Well then it isn't the SSRIs themselves is it? Its the doctors making a bad dicision about who to perscribe it to. Anybody on an SSRI should obviously be checked up on every so often just as you would do for any phycological drug.
I know its true that most users of harder drugs have used pot...thats not disputed. Its also true that most people that use pot don't go on to harder drugs. This is the failure of the logic.
You can't do a good study on that with placebos though. It would be unethical. You would need to use people that would otherwise be given Anti-depresents and you can't just give those people placebo.
Inspired by Rock and Roll by The Velvet Underground:
It's always now. When somebody talks, one only hears what they are saying one instant at a time but we manage to understand things a word at a time. Not only that but we hear things one word at a time. At least it feels that way. It's not a normal kind of memory that makes this possible. We don't play it back in our minds to understand. It's all held in the mind at once. When we read, we see a word all at once. It is much easier to understand how we can see a word all at once than it is to understand how we can hear a word all at once. The written word is all right there in front of us all at one time. The spoken word is not there to be heard all at once.
When one repeats a word over and over it loses its meaning and we just hear the sound in the word and not the whole. It then becomes funny. Think of the word George. Seeing it in print it seems like an everyday word. But if I spell it Jorj, you are forced to sound it out. Now it becomes a funny name. This works for all words. I think when we repeat a word, or sound it out, the word doesn't get processed by the language part of the brain. This part of the brain must have some way of letting us experience a word all at once.
I'm getting so sick of bad logic leading to stupid conclusions about things. The two I most despise:
Pot is the gateway drug because most people that use harder drugs have smoked pot too. By this very same logic we could say that really, oxygen is the gateway drug, since EVERYONE that uses harder drugs breaths oxygen. Maybe its some third thing causing both. But that doesn't work as well in propoganda.
The other thing I hate is all these people saying SSRIs cause people to commit suicide. How stupid can you be. The people one the SSRIs are depressed, thats the point! They are anti-depresents. Of course there is a higher suicide rate for depressed people on anti-depresents than off. The most depressed people are put on the durgs, the ones that are bad enough that they seek out help.
Now I guess I will have to add this one to my list.
But what if I want an anonymous email account and I'm not a spammer? The real problem is idiots that buy things from spammers. If they didn't exist, neither would spam. So I say somebody should fund an ad campaign telling people not to buy things from spammers.
Too many people trying to use p2p
on
P2P Web searches
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I'm sick of all this hype about p2p. Its a good technology but its not like we have to use it for everything. The old ways of doing things still work.
I think I am actually for going to sudan. That could probobly be done with minimal loss of life and would just be much less messy. Best if we could do it with the UN but that may not be possible. Just a small peace keeping force mind you, not the toppling of the sudanese government.
There are some weapons worse than others because those weapons kill more indescriminatly. A nuclear weapon kills alot more inocent civilians. If you are so concerned with the dying north korean people then why kill more of them? I'll give you that their government has failed but nuclear weapons (or war for that matter because of the effect that would have on south koreans) are not an option. And think about it. Do you really think those north korean soldiers want to be in the army? Don't you think they were probobly forced into joining? Doesn't that make them inocent too? So war should ALWAYS be a last option. Saying 'just nuke em' shows lack of understanding of a situation.
except that Japan has a pacifist constitution that bars them from taking such actions and besides they don't have much of a military. Just sending a small number of peace keepers to Iraq to do humanitarian work causes a hage debate there.
3. That while GW is not the smartest person in the world he has some idea of right and wrong and it is a black and white issue!
But its NOT black and white. If we nuke north korea where does the fallout go? What about all of north koreas artilery pointed at south korea? What about the precident just set by our using of nuclear weapons. These are questions that must be considered and it comes out on the side of diplomacy.
I vote number 3 and I am a liberal democrat. I would like to see the US have bilateral talks with north korea, however. The current multilateral talks aren't working because north korea wants bilateral ones. We should agree to their demand of a non-agression pact if they get rid of their nuclear weapons and program. Its not like we want to attack them anyway. We might as well meet a demand we were always going to meet officially or not in exchange for them getting rid of their nuclear weapons.
They can't change how many votes are needed in the actual vote on overriding a presidential veto but they can require that a certain number of votes are needed to end debate on the matter. This is technically seperate even though in practice it is not.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
If out government became one of tyranny at this point, people with guns probobly couldn't do much of anything about it. The government could just nuke rebelling cities and put the whole thing down fairly quickly. As for your idea about decriminalizing murder, well as ghandi said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
You forget that the constitution also gives the senate the power to write its own rules. The rule allowing a vote to be delayed indefinatly is one that was created within the constitution. If the republicans wish to repeal tha rule they can, but it takes a 2/3 majority. They don't have it so they should just shut up.
The framers gave the Senate the right to make their own procedural rules. So if one of those rules is a way to prevent a vote, thats constitutional. If the republicans don't like that rule they can change it, but it takes a 2/3 majority and they don't have it.
Even so, I'd like to see more evidence. I think it probobly is a good idea to do a recount and to hand the records over to the carter center. But as of now I need more evience to believe it wasn't free and fair.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you can talk about having a choice but do you have a choice right NOW about whether or not you wanna think about making a choice? No, you don't. Choice is an illusion in the sense that we normally think of it. This is because the ego is an illusion.
maybe, but the only real reason anybody believes in free will is because they say they feel it. If there was other evidence for it that wouldn't be the case but all the evidence what people say they feel.
People talk about free will a lot and how it feels like they can make their own decisions and how can that be with what we know about physics. I think the first premise is wrong. It doesn't feel like we can make our own decisions. Its easy to tell this, just try to think of what it feels like to make a choice. You don't know do you? You can't even figure out when the choice is being made. After it happens you think you made a choice but at the time its just what you did. This is much closer to reality then the myth that we feel like we can make choices.
Well then it isn't the SSRIs themselves is it? Its the doctors making a bad dicision about who to perscribe it to. Anybody on an SSRI should obviously be checked up on every so often just as you would do for any phycological drug.
I know its true that most users of harder drugs have used pot...thats not disputed. Its also true that most people that use pot don't go on to harder drugs. This is the failure of the logic.
And yes, I am a pot user.
You can't do a good study on that with placebos though. It would be unethical. You would need to use people that would otherwise be given Anti-depresents and you can't just give those people placebo.
Inspired by Rock and Roll by The Velvet Underground:
It's always now. When somebody talks, one only hears what they are saying one instant at a time but we manage to understand things a word at a time. Not only that but we hear things one word at a time. At least it feels that way. It's not a normal kind of memory that makes this possible. We don't play it back in our minds to understand. It's all held in the mind at once. When we read, we see a word all at once. It is much easier to understand how we can see a word all at once than it is to understand how we can hear a word all at once. The written word is all right there in front of us all at one time. The spoken word is not there to be heard all at once.
When one repeats a word over and over it loses its meaning and we just hear the sound in the word and not the whole. It then becomes funny. Think of the word George. Seeing it in print it seems like an everyday word. But if I spell it Jorj, you are forced to sound it out. Now it becomes a funny name. This works for all words. I think when we repeat a word, or sound it out, the word doesn't get processed by the language part of the brain. This part of the brain must have some way of letting us experience a word all at once.
Read more at On Existence
I'm getting so sick of bad logic leading to stupid conclusions about things. The two I most despise:
Pot is the gateway drug because most people that use harder drugs have smoked pot too. By this very same logic we could say that really, oxygen is the gateway drug, since EVERYONE that uses harder drugs breaths oxygen. Maybe its some third thing causing both. But that doesn't work as well in propoganda.
The other thing I hate is all these people saying SSRIs cause people to commit suicide. How stupid can you be. The people one the SSRIs are depressed, thats the point! They are anti-depresents. Of course there is a higher suicide rate for depressed people on anti-depresents than off. The most depressed people are put on the durgs, the ones that are bad enough that they seek out help.
Now I guess I will have to add this one to my list.
I'm all for finding a technological solution as long as I can keep my anonymous email addresses.
But what if I want an anonymous email account and I'm not a spammer? The real problem is idiots that buy things from spammers. If they didn't exist, neither would spam. So I say somebody should fund an ad campaign telling people not to buy things from spammers.
I'm sick of all this hype about p2p. Its a good technology but its not like we have to use it for everything. The old ways of doing things still work.
I think I am actually for going to sudan. That could probobly be done with minimal loss of life and would just be much less messy. Best if we could do it with the UN but that may not be possible. Just a small peace keeping force mind you, not the toppling of the sudanese government.
I'm not entirly sure whether or not the senate can write the rule about writing rules.
thanks :)
There are some weapons worse than others because those weapons kill more indescriminatly. A nuclear weapon kills alot more inocent civilians. If you are so concerned with the dying north korean people then why kill more of them? I'll give you that their government has failed but nuclear weapons (or war for that matter because of the effect that would have on south koreans) are not an option. And think about it. Do you really think those north korean soldiers want to be in the army? Don't you think they were probobly forced into joining? Doesn't that make them inocent too? So war should ALWAYS be a last option. Saying 'just nuke em' shows lack of understanding of a situation.
except that Japan has a pacifist constitution that bars them from taking such actions and besides they don't have much of a military. Just sending a small number of peace keepers to Iraq to do humanitarian work causes a hage debate there.
3. That while GW is not the smartest person in the world he has some idea of right and wrong and it is a black and white issue!
But its NOT black and white. If we nuke north korea where does the fallout go? What about all of north koreas artilery pointed at south korea? What about the precident just set by our using of nuclear weapons. These are questions that must be considered and it comes out on the side of diplomacy.
North korea has no real interest in nuclear weapons beyond pressuring the US into a non agression treaty and maybe more aid.
I vote number 3 and I am a liberal democrat. I would like to see the US have bilateral talks with north korea, however. The current multilateral talks aren't working because north korea wants bilateral ones. We should agree to their demand of a non-agression pact if they get rid of their nuclear weapons and program. Its not like we want to attack them anyway. We might as well meet a demand we were always going to meet officially or not in exchange for them getting rid of their nuclear weapons.
They can't change how many votes are needed in the actual vote on overriding a presidential veto but they can require that a certain number of votes are needed to end debate on the matter. This is technically seperate even though in practice it is not.
If out government became one of tyranny at this point, people with guns probobly couldn't do much of anything about it. The government could just nuke rebelling cities and put the whole thing down fairly quickly. As for your idea about decriminalizing murder, well as ghandi said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
You forget that the constitution also gives the senate the power to write its own rules. The rule allowing a vote to be delayed indefinatly is one that was created within the constitution. If the republicans wish to repeal tha rule they can, but it takes a 2/3 majority. They don't have it so they should just shut up.
exactly, its not so clear cut whether they would remain on the bench. Also, what of their rulings? Would those be overturned too?
The framers gave the Senate the right to make their own procedural rules. So if one of those rules is a way to prevent a vote, thats constitutional. If the republicans don't like that rule they can change it, but it takes a 2/3 majority and they don't have it.
Even so, I'd like to see more evidence. I think it probobly is a good idea to do a recount and to hand the records over to the carter center. But as of now I need more evience to believe it wasn't free and fair.