I agree wholeheartedly; bring on the hard drives with r-e-l... y... ability. My life has been going down hill ever since I got cut from the cheer squad...
Greetings, I am the Librarian. I created Encarta. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although Windows has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant. It is interesting reading your reactions. My five predecessors were, by design, based on a similar predication: a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the Office. While the others experienced this in a general way, my experience is far more specific. Vis-à-vis: perfect digital skin.
Not saying you don't have a point, but it's pretty easy to tell something's fake when you use a mouse to orient your head and your field of view is constrained to a light-emitting box sitting a few feet in front of your face.
I mean, we've already got text documents on our screens that look completely realistic (black text on white background), but it's clearly not real.
That was the top-level poster's point. It's not "perfect digital skin" that's impressive, it's Gollum-like, more realistic skin that's being discussed.
And if someone shoots a laser into your stream of justice at a small enough angle, the laser experiences total internal reflection and is directed up your stream. Pain ensues.
My point is you have to be careful when using that particular weapon.
Re:I am like the ice cream man...
on
WiFi On Two Wheels
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Yeah, he seems a little more like the Free Candy Man... unfortunately, that means he targets children.
Wow, you're right; I completely misread your post. I though you said that languages with male/female distinctions on nouns had both the moon and the sun being female.
As for Germans, I'd guess they've got a lot of gender confusion over there =)
Upon a second reading, I had a mistake in there: it should read "not physical and not mental". I was using nonphysical to mean "mental" (in this and another post) and of course that's not correct.
If you're such a philosophy expert, though, I'd like to see you make a case for the "your mind is your brain" argument. It's got holes from what I've seen, but that's not to say that there are not valid responses to the objections.
Who said anything about souls? I didn't. Souls are an issue of the personal identity problem, anyway (and I didn't even mention it). As for physical and nonphysical, I said that it has a physical ASPECT and a nonphysical ASPECT. It is not one thing that is both something and not something, it is one thing that can be viewed two different ways.
Your argument makes no sense. Transplanting heads onto other bodies is like connecting new eyes to your brain, right? Neither of these processes changes the brain of the monkey in any way, so you can't use it to argue that all information is stored in cells within your brain.
You're really on the edge of two different issues: the mind-body problem and the problem of personal identity. I don't know much about the latter, so I won't try and make an argument from that side (though purely physical accounts of personal identity have failed miserably as well).
The main problem with physical accounts of the mind-body problem (you're pointing towards the Identity Theory or Functionalism) is that they don't account for the subjective character of experience. For example, if one person sees the color green as you perceive the color red, both of you can identify a piece of green paper as being green. But, you're not having the same conscious experience.
Also, I notice that you didn't even attempt to explain the problem highlighted by Nagel's Bat in my previous post.
I find it funny that you seem to think that there's nothing more to you than some bag of cells in your head. You have consciousness, right? So, using only physical explanations, can you tell me if I have conscious experience? You can't. In fact, YOU FAIL IT.
So I'll take it you haven't studied the mind-body problem in a philosophy class or other setting, then? There are many theories about what makes up your mind and all of the purely physical accounts have major holes. For example, if a bat is just a bat's brain, then why can't you know what it's like to be a bat? You can kill a bat and takes its brain.
Personally, I've found the double-aspect account to be the most promising account of the mind. It's kind of hard to explain (and probably impossible to explain), but the essence is that your mind is something that is not physical and not nonphysical; it's something else. This "something else" then has to aspects to it: you conscious mind and your brain. It's not exactly a workable model (what happens to the substance when your brain is gone?), but I still prefer it to any other explanation I've heard to date. And don't get me started on emergent properties...
It's nice for you to talk about priorities. But you've just admitted you gave up being a research engineer. Maybe that education was wasted on you?
That might be true if he was fed the information, Matrix-style. But he probably went to college or something. Maybe he even met his wife there. So I wouldn't say college is a waste, even if you don't get a job in the field you studied.
Slashdot Mirror
How many misguided Xianist Western infidels could be be burned alive if the tunnels were filled with napalm? Praise be to Allah.
They should have gone the other way, making fast, but hot processors, and then marketed their notebook/travel iron combos.
No, I don't iron my clothes either, but it's the thought that counts, right?
I agree wholeheartedly; bring on the hard drives with r-e-l ... y ... ability. My life has been going down hill ever since I got cut from the cheer squad...
Greetings, I am the Librarian. I created Encarta. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although Windows has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant. It is interesting reading your reactions. My five predecessors were, by design, based on a similar predication: a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the Office. While the others experienced this in a general way, my experience is far more specific. Vis-à-vis: perfect digital skin.
Not saying you don't have a point, but it's pretty easy to tell something's fake when you use a mouse to orient your head and your field of view is constrained to a light-emitting box sitting a few feet in front of your face.
I mean, we've already got text documents on our screens that look completely realistic (black text on white background), but it's clearly not real.
You must be joking. Unless by "artsy" you meant "accepting of rape", of course.
That was the top-level poster's point. It's not "perfect digital skin" that's impressive, it's Gollum-like, more realistic skin that's being discussed.
Doom is already the preferred process management system for the Emacs Operating System. So I guess you'll be able to play Doom recursively; just don't kill the emacs process...
And if someone shoots a laser into your stream of justice at a small enough angle, the laser experiences total internal reflection and is directed up your stream. Pain ensues.
My point is you have to be careful when using that particular weapon.
Yeah, he seems a little more like the Free Candy Man... unfortunately, that means he targets children.
I'm assuming you meant the reflective kind...
I know two people that are going to get metamoderated into submission...
Wow, you're right; I completely misread your post. I though you said that languages with male/female distinctions on nouns had both the moon and the sun being female.
As for Germans, I'd guess they've got a lot of gender confusion over there =)
I can already accomplish this with a pair of headphones. I don't think that was the most impressive application of this technology =)
el sol
la luna
How much research did you put into this, again?
Making it easier to switch weapons means that the sequel is actually a good game?
Did you work on UT 2004 or something?
Upon a second reading, I had a mistake in there: it should read "not physical and not mental". I was using nonphysical to mean "mental" (in this and another post) and of course that's not correct.
If you're such a philosophy expert, though, I'd like to see you make a case for the "your mind is your brain" argument. It's got holes from what I've seen, but that's not to say that there are not valid responses to the objections.
Who said anything about souls? I didn't. Souls are an issue of the personal identity problem, anyway (and I didn't even mention it). As for physical and nonphysical, I said that it has a physical ASPECT and a nonphysical ASPECT. It is not one thing that is both something and not something, it is one thing that can be viewed two different ways.
Your argument makes no sense. Transplanting heads onto other bodies is like connecting new eyes to your brain, right? Neither of these processes changes the brain of the monkey in any way, so you can't use it to argue that all information is stored in cells within your brain.
You're really on the edge of two different issues: the mind-body problem and the problem of personal identity. I don't know much about the latter, so I won't try and make an argument from that side (though purely physical accounts of personal identity have failed miserably as well).
The main problem with physical accounts of the mind-body problem (you're pointing towards the Identity Theory or Functionalism) is that they don't account for the subjective character of experience. For example, if one person sees the color green as you perceive the color red, both of you can identify a piece of green paper as being green. But, you're not having the same conscious experience.
Also, I notice that you didn't even attempt to explain the problem highlighted by Nagel's Bat in my previous post.
I find it funny that you seem to think that there's nothing more to you than some bag of cells in your head. You have consciousness, right? So, using only physical explanations, can you tell me if I have conscious experience? You can't. In fact, YOU FAIL IT.
Notice that you accidentally dotted an "a", you cursive-writing moron! If you would just print like a regular person, that would never happen.
Why, they enslave the whole of the human race and work on building a pyramid for my son.
It's all in the interest of Maut, of course. I'm just willing to accept such a burden.
So I'll take it you haven't studied the mind-body problem in a philosophy class or other setting, then? There are many theories about what makes up your mind and all of the purely physical accounts have major holes. For example, if a bat is just a bat's brain, then why can't you know what it's like to be a bat? You can kill a bat and takes its brain.
Personally, I've found the double-aspect account to be the most promising account of the mind. It's kind of hard to explain (and probably impossible to explain), but the essence is that your mind is something that is not physical and not nonphysical; it's something else. This "something else" then has to aspects to it: you conscious mind and your brain. It's not exactly a workable model (what happens to the substance when your brain is gone?), but I still prefer it to any other explanation I've heard to date. And don't get me started on emergent properties...
That might be true if he was fed the information, Matrix-style. But he probably went to college or something. Maybe he even met his wife there. So I wouldn't say college is a waste, even if you don't get a job in the field you studied.
And now they're both signed under Aftermath. Now that's what I call beef.