I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries when I speak on behalf of the human race saying "Bring it on, karmatic bitches!" ('bitches', of course, thrown in to seal the deal.)
Any business should know not to participate in such behaviour, especially openly. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing... but selling Pirated material? Sorry, no matter what side of the fence you stand on, and wether you think it's right or wrong, it was pretty stupid of them.
Haha, while everyone else has been working on increasing their skills to appeal to the remnant American market, I've been learning to develop a taste for curry-based products! India, here I come!!!;)
You make an interesting point! In truth, I never looked at it that way... I don't know if it helps for resolving this particular situation, but it does cast religion in a different light than I'd looked at it before. I'll have to investigate the matter further.
Nay, you have me figured completely wrong... if you look at my other posts, I am utterly opposed to the concept of doing this hybridizing of humans, or otherwise doing strange or cruel things to other species. The fact of the matter is that we CAN do it... that is, we have the capacity to do so. It seems obvious to me that we *SHOULDN'T*, but the question of if its feasably possible because of our advances is obviously a yes.
it's funny, when you bring that up, it reminded me of an old thought I had when I was a kid. I noticed that people tend to fight each other because they need an enemy. I always speculated that if some alien species were ever to reveal itself, humanity would be much more peaceful within the species because this foreign entity would become the common enemy of humanity (perhaps regardless of the Alien's good or ill intent even). Granted, that is unfortunate but true... and if that logic holds, it would probably happen to any "subhuman" species that might ever arise, or any species that begins to exhibit intelligent thought similar to our own. It might solve a lot of intra-species conflict, but it would open a whole other box of violence.
I imagine a lot of things could. I won't say for him what it is, as there are many to choose from... but for starters, a non-religious philosophy could be his grounds. There's quite a bit of them, you know.
I myself, though mildly religious, am a believer in Kantian ethics: and thus, I base my judgments of morality not on Religion (which has morals but no rational grounding for them), but rather on Philosophy (which sometimes has morals but always has a more or less reasonable rational explanation for why).
I suspect that an Athiest who agrees with me on this issue (anti-Chimerian) is appealing to one of those non-Religious moral theories.
Aye, a very good point! If they were to develop the capacity to reason, then reason would lead them inevitably to discern the true nature of the state they were in: that is, that they were the products of an experiment, and are treated as base animals dispite having the intellectual prerequisites for being a part of "Humanity" (if you define Humanity as being those who have the ability to reason... which seems to make sense, given that we're the only ones right now.)
That would indeed be a sad fate: to be given consciousness only to have that very state lead you to realize the inescapable hell you have been placed into.
We *ARE* something special apart from the rest of creation. We can create something like a "Humanzee", to use the very example you (and the article) did! Let's see a monkey do that.
The fact of the matter is, we are indeed something special. Not apart from creation, but special. We, and as far as current research shows, we alone, are the sole holders of the ability to reason: the ability to focus on goals other than those driven by immediate instinct. As Kant once said, we alone are independant moral agents.
Speaking of interesting points, the fact that we are even having this conversation is a pretty strong testimony to the uniqueness of humanity. We have formed complex written and oral languages, and use technology of our own creation to shape the world around us so that we can do things like communicate when thousands of miles apart. I'd say we're at another plateau from the rest of the Animal kindgom, wouldn't you?
Come on, people! They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should!
Indeed, I am one of the people who, as the article put it, has a "negative backlash" against giving animals human traits. It's not for religious reasons, either. I'm no Religious Fundamentalist... (EDIT pre-sending: On a quick glance at what I typed, however, perhaps I'm a Humanitarian Fundamentalist. If so, then so be it.)
Rather, a Human is something that, to me, has an innate quality over all other animals: not derived from religion, but rather from the innate quality of being human. Having a capacity to reason, for example. Call me biased towards Humanity, but we are the best thing this planet has produced (indeed, dispite the trouble we cause, which I acknowledge is vast). Giving human parts to animals, at least in large quantities, seems to me to be some kind of basic betrayal of humanity. Whose side are we on, anyways? =)
Small transferences, like the ones mentioned at the very beginning of the article, are mildly disturbing but not outright revolting to me. But as they go on, and talk about potential half-human fetuses in mice (and letting them die as the accidents that they would be), or monkeys with human intelligence disturbs me to the deepest roots of my being. Call it Pro-Humanity zeal if you wish, but Humans > Monkeys. I mean, look at us, and what we've done! We are all here right now, typing in a complex common language over wires that harnass the fundamental powers of energy, and into a complex system of "code" which are products of our thought and our will to create something that serves us beyond our desire for mere survival.
Indeed, humans have done some horrible things as well, and continue to do them. But as it stands, humanity is one thing I will hold an allegiance to. I don't believe in having zeal for a government (which tends to be one of the more faulty institutions of our humanity), or for most beliefs (the zeal for which some people wrongly hold to them cause a great deal of the horrible things I spoke of), or for most organized groups in general. But humanity as a whole is something that, to me, is worth pledging allegiance to. If another animal species can come to our point on their own, then so be it: they would be our peers. But to make some human/animal cross breed feels to me to be the closest I have ever come to calling something treasonous. Usually I find the word absurd, as its usual political usage comes with a heavy bias and hides a greater truth. But for some reason, it feels... appropriate here.
So in summation, Hum4n5 >> 4n1m475, Hum4n1ty r0xx0rz j00, and other such nonsense.
At first glance, it sounded like this was a horrible thing... but read the patent.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler.
This is just one of the many limiting factors of the patent. From just reading the first few paragraphs, I learned that the patent only protected them from people who use the exact name of the operation in a BASIC-derived programming language.
While it's still a silly thing to patent, it doesn't seem to me to be an incredibly big deal.
(By the way, Mr. Nygard: "Faith has it's place for some people in society..." I thought your thesis was that it doesn't have a place?
Good try, but you are guilty of similar fallacies to Mr. Nygard himself. In his argument, he is equivocating the strict definition of Liberal (that is, that which is unorthodox or against the status quo, which by definition is all truly "new" ideas) with the political definition. Indeed, your points about political Conservatism and Liberalism are both correct and valid: but since his argument was an equivocation to begin with (that is, though Mr. Nygard equivocates to Political liberalism, he is speaking of the "real" Liberal definition), it doesn't really address the direct issue. (not that it was bad argument you had [quite the contrary], but it was unnecessary.)
While he was guilty of Equivocation, you are guilty of the Straw Man fallacy towards the end of your argument. His argument was obviously not that Faith doesn't have a place in Society: though it was not worded the best way, it is painfully obvious that he feels that Faith should not be an imposed standard in our society: that is, for example, it should not be taught in schools.
Read another way: Every good idea was once new... therefore every new idea is good...
I don't think you're looking at it with proper logic... He is implying the use of an "->" operator, which is basically saying:
Good idea -> was new idea
This operator works only in one direction. I doubt highly that it was meant to be interpreted the other way around, as that would be illogical. But it seems pretty obvious that he didn't mean it to be the other way around, which is perfectly valid given the rules of logic. The problem isn't with what he said, but the fact that you tried to distort the meaning. When someone is giving a one way relationship, and you assume it is two way in order to invalidate it, you are invalidating the argument on fallacious grounds...
I believe it's called the Straw Man argument: misrepresenting an opinion in order to disprove it.
The fact of his assertion is that indeed every good idea was once new (A(X)(good(X) -> was new(X)). He then asserts that every new idea begins as being liberal (A(X)(Was New(X) -> Was Liberal(X)).
Let's do a little proof, shall we?
F = Good Idea
G = New Idea
H = Liberal Idea
Goal: To prove A(X)(F(X) -> H(X))
What he was saying was logically valid. I don't see what you were complaining about... unless your intent was to purposely distort his position. You can say that his premises are incorrect (for example, that new ideas aren't always liberal, although that is questionable given the definition of Liberal... perhaps you could accuse him of Equivocation, as the definition of Liberal and the Semiotic meaning differ greatly) , but you cannot question the argument's structural validity.
Is, at least for me, not in the way described by the topic's author. If you need "standard" Encyclopedia information, why not go to an Encyclopedia? They're on the internet and easy to access as well. It could be argued that the Wikipedia has a humble mission of creating a "People's" Encyclopedia, and thus mistakes should be met with correction and not criticism of the system that made it... but that's beyond the scope of my present argument.
What I find most useful about Wikipedia is the thousands of topics that it covers which an Encyclopedia (I would assume) wouldn't even begin to touch. Highly technical or deep-rooted entries about the fields of Science and Philosophy, as well as many other fields, are contained in the Wikipedia and would never be touched by a generalization-filled Encyclopedia.
To me, that's the strong point of the Wikipedia. People with genuine expert on one or two specific subjects come to the Wikipedia and give articles of great length about the subject of their choice, and it gives a more thorough picture, overall, than an encyclopedia could. Would Brittanica have an extended article about proper coding style, for example? No, they are about generalizations.
My rule of thumb about the Wikipedia is this: as long as you think carefully about what you're reading, you may find something that you wouldn't have in the Status-Quo Encyclopedias.
One day to a new beginning Raise the flag of freedom high! Every man will be a king Every man will be a king There's a new world for the winning There's a new world to be won...
Tomorrow is the judgment day tomorrow is the judgment day tomorrow we'll discover what our God in Heaven has in store One more dawn One more day One day more.
I see that you beat me to the punch! You asked the one question that was lingering on my mind... ignore my post that comes up later, it's pretty much asking the same question.
Oh, I just thought of it though... perhaps they're using the neurons in the same way that you would use virtual neurons (as in the data structure/AI structure)? That is to say, they only process information about relationships: it would be up to the program (what the electrodes would be for) to determine how those relationships it generates are USED. AHA! I think that might be it... but I could be wrong.
How does it teach the brain the motivation? That's what I want to know.
For example, it said that the brain could control the pitch and roll. How would the brain know initially even what those are, let alone that it should even be attempting to control it?
In truth, I never realized that MUDs had been around that long. LORD came out in... 89 I think it was? Maybe as early as 87, I can't remember... I remember the MUD scene becoming pretty popular in the early 90's, but I had no idea that it had dated back that far. Consider me corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries when I speak on behalf of the human race saying "Bring it on, karmatic bitches!" ('bitches', of course, thrown in to seal the deal.)
Any business should know not to participate in such behaviour, especially openly. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing... but selling Pirated material? Sorry, no matter what side of the fence you stand on, and wether you think it's right or wrong, it was pretty stupid of them.
"Get out of my HEAD!!! Get outta my head!!!!" (runs away)
you insensitive clod!
Haha, while everyone else has been working on increasing their skills to appeal to the remnant American market, I've been learning to develop a taste for curry-based products! India, here I come!!! ;)
All's good =)
I would laugh in response, but the truth of what you said is too depressing to laugh about.
You make an interesting point! In truth, I never looked at it that way... I don't know if it helps for resolving this particular situation, but it does cast religion in a different light than I'd looked at it before. I'll have to investigate the matter further.
Nay, you have me figured completely wrong... if you look at my other posts, I am utterly opposed to the concept of doing this hybridizing of humans, or otherwise doing strange or cruel things to other species. The fact of the matter is that we CAN do it... that is, we have the capacity to do so. It seems obvious to me that we *SHOULDN'T*, but the question of if its feasably possible because of our advances is obviously a yes.
... sorry, I'll be quiet now.
it's funny, when you bring that up, it reminded me of an old thought I had when I was a kid. I noticed that people tend to fight each other because they need an enemy. I always speculated that if some alien species were ever to reveal itself, humanity would be much more peaceful within the species because this foreign entity would become the common enemy of humanity (perhaps regardless of the Alien's good or ill intent even). Granted, that is unfortunate but true... and if that logic holds, it would probably happen to any "subhuman" species that might ever arise, or any species that begins to exhibit intelligent thought similar to our own. It might solve a lot of intra-species conflict, but it would open a whole other box of violence.
I myself, though mildly religious, am a believer in Kantian ethics: and thus, I base my judgments of morality not on Religion (which has morals but no rational grounding for them), but rather on Philosophy (which sometimes has morals but always has a more or less reasonable rational explanation for why).
I suspect that an Athiest who agrees with me on this issue (anti-Chimerian) is appealing to one of those non-Religious moral theories.
That would indeed be a sad fate: to be given consciousness only to have that very state lead you to realize the inescapable hell you have been placed into.
The fact of the matter is, we are indeed something special. Not apart from creation, but special. We, and as far as current research shows, we alone, are the sole holders of the ability to reason: the ability to focus on goals other than those driven by immediate instinct. As Kant once said, we alone are independant moral agents.
Speaking of interesting points, the fact that we are even having this conversation is a pretty strong testimony to the uniqueness of humanity. We have formed complex written and oral languages, and use technology of our own creation to shape the world around us so that we can do things like communicate when thousands of miles apart. I'd say we're at another plateau from the rest of the Animal kindgom, wouldn't you?
Indeed, I am one of the people who, as the article put it, has a "negative backlash" against giving animals human traits. It's not for religious reasons, either. I'm no Religious Fundamentalist... (EDIT pre-sending: On a quick glance at what I typed, however, perhaps I'm a Humanitarian Fundamentalist. If so, then so be it.)
Rather, a Human is something that, to me, has an innate quality over all other animals: not derived from religion, but rather from the innate quality of being human. Having a capacity to reason, for example. Call me biased towards Humanity, but we are the best thing this planet has produced (indeed, dispite the trouble we cause, which I acknowledge is vast). Giving human parts to animals, at least in large quantities, seems to me to be some kind of basic betrayal of humanity. Whose side are we on, anyways? =)
Small transferences, like the ones mentioned at the very beginning of the article, are mildly disturbing but not outright revolting to me. But as they go on, and talk about potential half-human fetuses in mice (and letting them die as the accidents that they would be), or monkeys with human intelligence disturbs me to the deepest roots of my being. Call it Pro-Humanity zeal if you wish, but Humans > Monkeys. I mean, look at us, and what we've done! We are all here right now, typing in a complex common language over wires that harnass the fundamental powers of energy, and into a complex system of "code" which are products of our thought and our will to create something that serves us beyond our desire for mere survival.
Indeed, humans have done some horrible things as well, and continue to do them. But as it stands, humanity is one thing I will hold an allegiance to. I don't believe in having zeal for a government (which tends to be one of the more faulty institutions of our humanity), or for most beliefs (the zeal for which some people wrongly hold to them cause a great deal of the horrible things I spoke of), or for most organized groups in general. But humanity as a whole is something that, to me, is worth pledging allegiance to. If another animal species can come to our point on their own, then so be it: they would be our peers. But to make some human/animal cross breed feels to me to be the closest I have ever come to calling something treasonous. Usually I find the word absurd, as its usual political usage comes with a heavy bias and hides a greater truth. But for some reason, it feels... appropriate here.
So in summation, Hum4n5 >> 4n1m475, Hum4n1ty r0xx0rz j00, and other such nonsense.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler.
This is just one of the many limiting factors of the patent. From just reading the first few paragraphs, I learned that the patent only protected them from people who use the exact name of the operation in a BASIC-derived programming language.
While it's still a silly thing to patent, it doesn't seem to me to be an incredibly big deal.
Good try, but you are guilty of similar fallacies to Mr. Nygard himself. In his argument, he is equivocating the strict definition of Liberal (that is, that which is unorthodox or against the status quo, which by definition is all truly "new" ideas) with the political definition. Indeed, your points about political Conservatism and Liberalism are both correct and valid: but since his argument was an equivocation to begin with (that is, though Mr. Nygard equivocates to Political liberalism, he is speaking of the "real" Liberal definition), it doesn't really address the direct issue. (not that it was bad argument you had [quite the contrary], but it was unnecessary.)
While he was guilty of Equivocation, you are guilty of the Straw Man fallacy towards the end of your argument. His argument was obviously not that Faith doesn't have a place in Society: though it was not worded the best way, it is painfully obvious that he feels that Faith should not be an imposed standard in our society: that is, for example, it should not be taught in schools.
Brief correction of the above... line 6 of my proof was a Universal Generalization. Proof stays the same, I had just mislabeled the name of the rule.
I don't think you're looking at it with proper logic... He is implying the use of an "->" operator, which is basically saying:
Good idea -> was new idea
This operator works only in one direction. I doubt highly that it was meant to be interpreted the other way around, as that would be illogical. But it seems pretty obvious that he didn't mean it to be the other way around, which is perfectly valid given the rules of logic. The problem isn't with what he said, but the fact that you tried to distort the meaning. When someone is giving a one way relationship, and you assume it is two way in order to invalidate it, you are invalidating the argument on fallacious grounds...
I believe it's called the Straw Man argument: misrepresenting an opinion in order to disprove it.
The fact of his assertion is that indeed every good idea was once new (A(X)(good(X) -> was new(X)). He then asserts that every new idea begins as being liberal (A(X)(Was New(X) -> Was Liberal(X)).
Let's do a little proof, shall we?
F = Good Idea
G = New Idea
H = Liberal Idea Goal: To prove A(X)(F(X) -> H(X))
1. A(X)(F(X)->G(X)) : Premise
2. A(X)(G(X)->H(X)) : Premise
3. F(c) -> G(c) : Universal Instantiation, 1
4. G(c) -> H(c) : Universal Instatiation, 2
5. F(c) -> H(c) : Hypothetical Syllogism, 3, 4
6. A(X)(F(X) -> H(X)) : Universal Instantiation, 5
Q.E.D.
What he was saying was logically valid. I don't see what you were complaining about... unless your intent was to purposely distort his position. You can say that his premises are incorrect (for example, that new ideas aren't always liberal, although that is questionable given the definition of Liberal... perhaps you could accuse him of Equivocation, as the definition of Liberal and the Semiotic meaning differ greatly) , but you cannot question the argument's structural validity.
You'd probably be more likely to recieve the Poo in this situation. ;)
What I find most useful about Wikipedia is the thousands of topics that it covers which an Encyclopedia (I would assume) wouldn't even begin to touch. Highly technical or deep-rooted entries about the fields of Science and Philosophy, as well as many other fields, are contained in the Wikipedia and would never be touched by a generalization-filled Encyclopedia.
To me, that's the strong point of the Wikipedia. People with genuine expert on one or two specific subjects come to the Wikipedia and give articles of great length about the subject of their choice, and it gives a more thorough picture, overall, than an encyclopedia could. Would Brittanica have an extended article about proper coding style, for example? No, they are about generalizations.
My rule of thumb about the Wikipedia is this: as long as you think carefully about what you're reading, you may find something that you wouldn't have in the Status-Quo Encyclopedias.
One day to a new beginning
Raise the flag of freedom high!
Every man will be a king
Every man will be a king
There's a new world for the winning
There's a new world to be won...
Tomorrow is the judgment day
tomorrow is the judgment day
tomorrow we'll discover what our God in Heaven has in store
One more dawn
One more day
One day more.
Oh, I just thought of it though... perhaps they're using the neurons in the same way that you would use virtual neurons (as in the data structure/AI structure)? That is to say, they only process information about relationships: it would be up to the program (what the electrodes would be for) to determine how those relationships it generates are USED. AHA! I think that might be it... but I could be wrong.
How does it teach the brain the motivation? That's what I want to know.
For example, it said that the brain could control the pitch and roll. How would the brain know initially even what those are, let alone that it should even be attempting to control it?
In truth, I never realized that MUDs had been around that long. LORD came out in... 89 I think it was? Maybe as early as 87, I can't remember... I remember the MUD scene becoming pretty popular in the early 90's, but I had no idea that it had dated back that far. Consider me corrected.