How about we all use a qualifier, like a number out of 10. A breakthrough-0 would be a small tiny one, and a breakthrough-10 would be a "oh wow, we just discovered free energy, and 5 top universities agree and have published it on their university home page - go look now!". hmmm...
If you are not reifying something manifestly immaterial (experience) then I still have no idea what qualia is.
Yes, I do think it is something non-physical, something which resides in a completely different realm, and yes I know that sounds weird and somewhat paranormal.
For the record, I'm not religious, or a new-ager or anything like that, though I think there's a good chance we have an immaterial 'soul' (or whatever you want to call it) to experience this immaterial qualia. I suppose qualia implies a soul, though I'm sure many great philosophers accept qualia but not a soul.
I don't think there's anything else I can say really which I could hope to convince you. Hope you've had a nice xmas anyway!
Well, in that case, companies who embrace automation will kill off the weaker companies who are too proud to adjust.
But it doesn't have to be like that - my brother worked on producing automatic spreadsheets and programs for the company he worked with. Gradually, the staff began to appreciate the immense amount of time they were saving through doing that.
Yes, it's better to do it the long way, and then when it comes to the workplace afterwards, you won't have the inclination (or dare I say imagination) to find a quicker way to do it. After all, work is supposed to be tedious, and it's cheating if you find a way to automate the job, even if it saves the company millions.
No, no it doesn't. I have access to sense data. I have access to emotions. I do not have access to qualia, I don't even know what it is supposed to be since you wont provide me with a definition.
Surely you have at least a vague idea of what I'm referring to? How different red is from blue, how they're both totally indescribable, but somehow very real regardless (albeit very abstract)? 'Elemental' is another word I would use.
I don't know what it is either exactly, but it's definitely something tangible. Do you even consider that as a remote possibility? Is there just something about qualia which says to you something that suggests the merest hint of something 'weird' going on about say, the colour red, or a musical chord, or the taste of cinnamon? Surely you must know what I'm talking about. You can disagree, but you must know what I mean.
It just seems stupid to me that one can't say: "I'm seeing (or not seeing) the same colour as you are when I look at that tree/lake", and not actually mean something when one says it. Essentially, you're saying the above statement is meaningless.
Finally, see the 'Eclipse of Mars' illusion I created a while back at the top of this URL. It may not change your mind, but you can't get a stronger quale than that!
http://www.skytopia.com/project/illusion/2illusion.html
Of course not - it's impossible to define properly. It still 'exists' in some very real form though despite that.
I do not experience this 'ultra raw experience'
Unless you were a zombie or robot, I would think you do, but I can't prove it.
To any reasonable philosopher there is no qualia, no ultra raw experience.
It would be so easy for me to say the reverse. I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but many well respected philosphers would disagree.
We cant say such a thing does not exist but debating it is as meaningless as debating the existence of unicorns and about as useful.
Except unlike unicorns and ghosts, qualia has a good chance of being real because we all experience it directly even though we can never fully describe it.
All you can say with any degree of certainty is that your mind when exposed to red has one response, and another when exposed to green.
So science will never be able to say for sure if you're seeing blue as I see blue? Don't you find that a bit odd? Likewise, poke inside somebody's brain to find the taste of cinnamon, vanilla or apple. Good luck in finding them.
Representation and distinguishing colour is one thing, but no, I'm talking about the ultra raw experience itself. That's the thing - it's completely outside measurement. For example, there's still no way to prove with absolute certainty (even with our best science/math) that what I call 'red' is actually what you experience as 'red' - you could be seeing green instead. Something that 'should' be deducible through science will forever remain opaque. Likewise, we'll never *really* know what colours say, a dog sees (and knowing what wavelengths of light they filter is not the same thing of course). It's inherently unknowable.
Whether you call that alone, evidence for qualia is a matter for debate.
Didn't they do a study where they found that wearing a helmet (pushcycle or motor?) caused more accidents, because people felt they could take more risks?
I really think we just need to get used to the idea of a noiseless motor-car. Everything seems to like to make noise, from the microwave, to the heater, to the computer fan etc.. To have a chance of removing one major source of noise like cars would be great.
What could be an interesting test is to have noise-emitting cars for 3 years, and then silent ones for another 3 years. See which people prefer (make sure every car is electric first off all though).
Amazing how few of these comments discuss the topic, and how many go on about Opera generally.
Anyway, I've wanted this feature for years, and this looks like it could be a decent implementation. I like the way the 'master tab' of a stack can be altered according to the last highlighted tab when you click "Tab Group" to stack them. One slight issue however is that it's hard to see which tabs are part of a group if the tab placement is vertical instead of horizontal.
Time will tell how all this works in the real world.
I suggest in the last story "why can't they sell it?", and lo and behold this pops up. Great to hear the news (even though I don't use Delicious personally), and good on Yahoo.
Well that's just evil imo. Obviously a smaller, lighter, more enthusiastic company could do better, especially if they're lucky.
By tossing it away instead of selling, they look worse off to the public, at least to my eyes. There are plenty of users who use that site, and I may not be one of them, but sitting on something and burying is what happens often in the patent world, and it's a sorry state of affairs.
The most ideal thing they could do is to rank every article according to its importance. This way, even the most niche article can stay and have a place.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you seem such an idealist, are you interested in the Haiku OS?
So why are they having so much difficulty in making SATA decently fast?
And why don't you think SSDs for PCIe (or indeed just PCI for standard desktops) have caught on yet?
How does racetrack memory compare to that other favourite - the memristor? What are the main disadvantages/advantages of either?
How about we all use a qualifier, like a number out of 10. A breakthrough-0 would be a small tiny one, and a breakthrough-10 would be a "oh wow, we just discovered free energy, and 5 top universities agree and have published it on their university home page - go look now!". hmmm...
If you are not reifying something manifestly immaterial (experience) then I still have no idea what qualia is.
Yes, I do think it is something non-physical, something which resides in a completely different realm, and yes I know that sounds weird and somewhat paranormal.
For the record, I'm not religious, or a new-ager or anything like that, though I think there's a good chance we have an immaterial 'soul' (or whatever you want to call it) to experience this immaterial qualia. I suppose qualia implies a soul, though I'm sure many great philosophers accept qualia but not a soul.
I don't think there's anything else I can say really which I could hope to convince you. Hope you've had a nice xmas anyway!
Well, in that case, companies who embrace automation will kill off the weaker companies who are too proud to adjust.
But it doesn't have to be like that - my brother worked on producing automatic spreadsheets and programs for the company he worked with. Gradually, the staff began to appreciate the immense amount of time they were saving through doing that.
Yes, it's better to do it the long way, and then when it comes to the workplace afterwards, you won't have the inclination (or dare I say imagination) to find a quicker way to do it. After all, work is supposed to be tedious, and it's cheating if you find a way to automate the job, even if it saves the company millions.
No, no it doesn't. I have access to sense data. I have access to emotions. I do not have access to qualia, I don't even know what it is supposed to be since you wont provide me with a definition.
Surely you have at least a vague idea of what I'm referring to? How different red is from blue, how they're both totally indescribable, but somehow very real regardless (albeit very abstract)? 'Elemental' is another word I would use.
I don't know what it is either exactly, but it's definitely something tangible. Do you even consider that as a remote possibility? Is there just something about qualia which says to you something that suggests the merest hint of something 'weird' going on about say, the colour red, or a musical chord, or the taste of cinnamon? Surely you must know what I'm talking about. You can disagree, but you must know what I mean.
It just seems stupid to me that one can't say: "I'm seeing (or not seeing) the same colour as you are when I look at that tree/lake", and not actually mean something when one says it. Essentially, you're saying the above statement is meaningless.
Finally, see the 'Eclipse of Mars' illusion I created a while back at the top of this URL. It may not change your mind, but you can't get a stronger quale than that! http://www.skytopia.com/project/illusion/2illusion.html
"Ultra raw experience" is not a definition
Of course not - it's impossible to define properly. It still 'exists' in some very real form though despite that.
I do not experience this 'ultra raw experience'
Unless you were a zombie or robot, I would think you do, but I can't prove it.
To any reasonable philosopher there is no qualia, no ultra raw experience.
It would be so easy for me to say the reverse. I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but many well respected philosphers would disagree.
We cant say such a thing does not exist but debating it is as meaningless as debating the existence of unicorns and about as useful.
Except unlike unicorns and ghosts, qualia has a good chance of being real because we all experience it directly even though we can never fully describe it.
All you can say with any degree of certainty is that your mind when exposed to red has one response, and another when exposed to green.
So science will never be able to say for sure if you're seeing blue as I see blue? Don't you find that a bit odd? Likewise, poke inside somebody's brain to find the taste of cinnamon, vanilla or apple. Good luck in finding them.
Representation and distinguishing colour is one thing, but no, I'm talking about the ultra raw experience itself. That's the thing - it's completely outside measurement. For example, there's still no way to prove with absolute certainty (even with our best science/math) that what I call 'red' is actually what you experience as 'red' - you could be seeing green instead. Something that 'should' be deducible through science will forever remain opaque. Likewise, we'll never *really* know what colours say, a dog sees (and knowing what wavelengths of light they filter is not the same thing of course). It's inherently unknowable.
Whether you call that alone, evidence for qualia is a matter for debate.
I'd like you to see how you can base something like Qualia around maths. Good luck.
Didn't they do a study where they found that wearing a helmet (pushcycle or motor?) caused more accidents, because people felt they could take more risks?
I really think we just need to get used to the idea of a noiseless motor-car. Everything seems to like to make noise, from the microwave, to the heater, to the computer fan etc.. To have a chance of removing one major source of noise like cars would be great.
What could be an interesting test is to have noise-emitting cars for 3 years, and then silent ones for another 3 years. See which people prefer (make sure every car is electric first off all though).
What are the different types then, and which version of it should we want?
Amazing how few of these comments discuss the topic, and how many go on about Opera generally.
Anyway, I've wanted this feature for years, and this looks like it could be a decent implementation. I like the way the 'master tab' of a stack can be altered according to the last highlighted tab when you click "Tab Group" to stack them. One slight issue however is that it's hard to see which tabs are part of a group if the tab placement is vertical instead of horizontal.
Time will tell how all this works in the real world.
Good point - I think that's the primary purpose like you say.
What a pity all the important information is stored on the HD, not the CPU.
I suggest in the last story "why can't they sell it?", and lo and behold this pops up. Great to hear the news (even though I don't use Delicious personally), and good on Yahoo.
Oh it turns out that they're looking to sell it anyway:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/17/yahoo-trying-to-sell-del-icio-us-not-to-shut-it-down/
As usual Slashdot gets it just a bit wrong.
Well that's just evil imo. Obviously a smaller, lighter, more enthusiastic company could do better, especially if they're lucky.
By tossing it away instead of selling, they look worse off to the public, at least to my eyes. There are plenty of users who use that site, and I may not be one of them, but sitting on something and burying is what happens often in the patent world, and it's a sorry state of affairs.
Oh I get it. I might have guessed - you're another EVIL EDUCATOR right?
You cannot think opposite of what you were taught to think. You have a cyclop perspective and taught android mentality.
Timecube.com had 89,000,000 links at one time, it's almost that now. Once again, Google provides further here that 4-corner days are real.
Can't they just sell the site to another company?
The most ideal thing they could do is to rank every article according to its importance. This way, even the most niche article can stay and have a place.
Reminds me of the messy formulae that genetic programming creates.
Yes, though I'm pretty sure such studies (fuzzy though they be) have been done.
Interesting, one can recommend or even supply a data set to them (time to fire an email off!).
A shame that site doesn't have a "happiness index" or equivalent as one of its data sets.