well, epistemologically I think there is one question and one answer (which cannot be refuted by the individual).
The question, "Am I?" And the answer, "I am."
It is impossible for this question to be asked or answered unless there is something there to ask and answer it - and that something is I.
it can be extrapolated to "I exist"
the, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed; for something else could be inserting the thoughts into your head. however the head into which these ideas are put is yours.
Now, as for what "I" am (is), or whether you or anything else exists - that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
I guess we have to kill a lot of non-geeks first ; P
I think subdue would be the better choice of word.
Remember, WE aren't going to be the ones physically fighting. It will be our telepresence controlled nanotube-armored hoards of humanoid robots who will be on the front lines.
Better to convert the nonbelievers than kill such precious commodities. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
whether this is it or not, one day humanity will greatly augment it's own intelligence.
I mean, far beyond the ways we've already managed to do.
Chemicals are all that intelligence is. You are nothing but chemicals.
well, the same way a painting is nothing but paint, of course.
But really the big differences between human brains and the other smart creatures of earth is our chemical makeup.
nuerochemicals are some of the most complicated naturally occuring chemical structures known - right alongside scents (hydrocarbon chains I think - that's what Fry said anyway).
Of course, the neurochemicals of the human brian aren't actually more complex than those of any other creature. But they are different.
and my my if the outcome of their interactions in the environment of the brain isn't something.
I mean, how interesting that something can analyze itself. That these chemicals mix together to figure out how to make themselves mix together better:)
is this starting to sound exponential to anyone else?
let's see, we use machines to build better machines,we use computers to design faster and better computers and now we use our brain chemicals (as thought) to find out how to get better chemical reactions in our brain.
We've got something interesting going on now don't we?
After all, if you inflate balloons to the point of popping and you know at 12cm diameter most of them blow up, then when a balloon has achieved 12.1cm you can pretty acurately surmise that at 12.2cm it will have a near 100% chance of bursting.
I suppose you could also conjecture that a balloon has a 0% chance of achieving 2,000cm diameter without popping.
His point is that whether you see it directly or not, racism will harm you in some way.
That is what the idea of a moral is.
After all, murder entails benifits for the murderer - if it didn't have some benifit then no one would murder each other.
So should we stop pretending that murder is harmful to the recipient and the murderer?
It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see how, even if this murderer is never punished by law for his actions, he himself has in some way been harmed (read:effected in a negative way).
Any action has pros and cons. Nothing is 100% right. But I think it hard to argue that on a whole more people have benifited from racism then from it's opposite.
well, it's good old statistics again.
For instance, when I flip a coin what are the chances that it comes up heads?
50/50 of course (or be pedantic and say 49.999../50.000...1).
now if I flip it again what are the chances?..still 50/50 of course:)
my 10,000th flip will still be 50/50.
but what are the chances that I will flip heads twice in a row?
Statistics seem to predict nothing with pinpoint accuracy(well, at least 89.45% of the time), but they give you the odds.
well we are certainly in the trenches of a galactic battlefield.
Tracers fly over our heads nightly.
Our nearest outpost is riddled with bullet holes.
It certainly seems rational to spread the troops out so that a single mortar round doesn't take out the whole company.
I've been watching band of brothers alot lately:D
I agree there are breeds of dog with attributes and behavioral traits associated with them.
I would argue that breeds are not fully a human nor dog social construct.
If your intent is to compare Dog breeds to the idea of human races then consider that there is a biological and social gap.
while DNA and mutational differences between these breeds result in differing prominent physical characteristics and the method to which these distinct features arose are fundamentally influenced by human interaction (much the same way culture could be seen as involved in the physical differences between peoples) the dog is a far different animal from a human being.
Different from a human both in chemical and genetic makeup as well as in their place in human culture - which is of course directly responsible for the creation of the worlds breeds.
I then would ask you, would you agree that the behavior and physical makeup of the mutt can also be generalized to some extent? Even with contrasting examples of breed ancestry?
I will give you so much as the mutt will certainly carry traits from it's parentry.However, these traits will become watered down with very few generations of interbreeding.
I point you to the notion of Hybrid Vigor.
I'm a wikinut if you didn't notice:)
just my two cents, but what the heck is wrong with people?
Humans are Humans! We are almost all exactly the same! in fact, the "races" of human don't even fit the biological definition of race! It's a social contstruct.
Culture, well, that's different. Cultures are macro and micro - and at times it seems that there are larger cultural gulfs between city blocks then country borders.
Guess my "race", please. After all, you slashdotters all look the same to me. Mostly like ASCII.
a friend of mine told me he thought it folly to model computational devices after the structure of the human brain.
I told him how interesting it was that the brain had short term memory and long term memory just like a computer has ram and hard drives- and how we have eyes which are like a video card and so on...
he told me it was dumb to compare computers to humans in any sense - being that the processes used by the brain vs computer were so vastly different that any comparison was rendered invalid merely by the underlying structure.
but I wasn't completely sure. after all, a chair has arms and legs and a head - but that's not to say it is exactly the same as a human body.
The chair has simply been designed to accomodate our body-form.
in this same way I feel that computers have been designed to acoomodate our thinking-form. they operate in a way which makes sense to us.
so, this brings me back - should we be trying to make our artificial intelligences mimic the way we do things?
or perhaps, whereas the chair forms the body BUT a car uses wheels instead of legs and thus breaks from the human form, should we explore other methods of processing that are a departure from the way we know?
that we use these things for years and then someone claims they invented it?
I mean, if people were flying for years and I suddenly looked up and went...OH! look! people have been using my invention for years and I never noticed!...I would think I were a pretty unobservant guy:/
You are correct, there are no gigantic divisive issues to serve the purpose of mobilization anymore are there?
also, again you are right. there is no "simple" revolution:) but it was less complex back then, I would think - perhaps every bit as complicated though. . . . or vise-versa, or neither!
intriguing. so basically modern oppression has learned the "less is more" maxim.
interesting and a bit unsettling. perhaps this is being exercised in the united states as well?
Slashdot Mirror
well, epistemologically I think there is one question and one answer (which cannot be refuted by the individual).
The question,
"Am I?"
And the answer,
"I am."
It is impossible for this question to be asked or answered unless there is something there to ask and answer it - and that something is I.
it can be extrapolated to "I exist"
the, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed; for something else could be inserting the thoughts into your head.
however the head into which these ideas are put is yours.
Now, as for what "I" am (is), or whether you or anything else exists - that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
you should always demand a girl be present in the webcast who will answer your live questions.
that way you can verify that she is actually there with the christmas lights...
in fact forget the lights... and the questions.
I guess we have to kill a lot of non-geeks first ; P
I think subdue would be the better choice of word.
Remember, WE aren't going to be the ones physically fighting. It will be our telepresence controlled nanotube-armored hoards of humanoid robots who will be on the front lines.
Better to convert the nonbelievers than kill such precious commodities. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
heh ¦]
whether this is it or not, one day humanity will greatly augment it's own intelligence.
:)
I mean, far beyond the ways we've already managed to do.
Chemicals are all that intelligence is. You are nothing but chemicals.
well, the same way a painting is nothing but paint, of course.
But really the big differences between human brains and the other smart creatures of earth is our chemical makeup.
nuerochemicals are some of the most complicated naturally occuring chemical structures known - right alongside scents (hydrocarbon chains I think - that's what Fry said anyway).
Of course, the neurochemicals of the human brian aren't actually more complex than those of any other creature. But they are different.
and my my if the outcome of their interactions in the environment of the brain isn't something.
I mean, how interesting that something can analyze itself. That these chemicals mix together to figure out how to make themselves mix together better
is this starting to sound exponential to anyone else?
let's see, we use machines to build better machines,we use computers to design faster and better computers and now we use our brain chemicals (as thought) to find out how to get better chemical reactions in our brain.
We've got something interesting going on now don't we?
that's true.
:D
After all, if you inflate balloons to the point of popping and you know at 12cm diameter most of them blow up, then when a balloon has achieved 12.1cm you can pretty acurately surmise that at 12.2cm it will have a near 100% chance of bursting.
I suppose you could also conjecture that a balloon has a 0% chance of achieving 2,000cm diameter without popping.
Probability is fun
Did you mean: STFU
His point is that whether you see it directly or not, racism will harm you in some way.
That is what the idea of a moral is.
After all, murder entails benifits for the murderer - if it didn't have some benifit then no one would murder each other.
So should we stop pretending that murder is harmful to the recipient and the murderer?
It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see how, even if this murderer is never punished by law for his actions, he himself has in some way been harmed (read:effected in a negative way).
Any action has pros and cons. Nothing is 100% right. But I think it hard to argue that on a whole more people have benifited from racism then from it's opposite.
well, it's good old statistics again. :)
For instance, when I flip a coin what are the chances that it comes up heads?
50/50 of course (or be pedantic and say 49.999../50.000...1).
now if I flip it again what are the chances?..still 50/50 of course
my 10,000th flip will still be 50/50.
but what are the chances that I will flip heads twice in a row?
Statistics seem to predict nothing with pinpoint accuracy(well, at least 89.45% of the time), but they give you the odds.
well we are certainly in the trenches of a galactic battlefield. :D
Tracers fly over our heads nightly.
Our nearest outpost is riddled with bullet holes.
It certainly seems rational to spread the troops out so that a single mortar round doesn't take out the whole company.
I've been watching band of brothers alot lately
I agree there are breeds of dog with attributes and behavioral traits associated with them. :)
I would argue that breeds are not fully a human nor dog social construct.
If your intent is to compare Dog breeds to the idea of human races then consider that there is a biological and social gap.
while DNA and mutational differences between these breeds result in differing prominent physical characteristics and the method to which these distinct features arose are fundamentally influenced by human interaction (much the same way culture could be seen as involved in the physical differences between peoples) the dog is a far different animal from a human being.
Different from a human both in chemical and genetic makeup as well as in their place in human culture - which is of course directly responsible for the creation of the worlds breeds.
I then would ask you, would you agree that the behavior and physical makeup of the mutt can also be generalized to some extent? Even with contrasting examples of breed ancestry? I will give you so much as the mutt will certainly carry traits from it's parentry.However, these traits will become watered down with very few generations of interbreeding.
I point you to the notion of Hybrid Vigor.
I'm a wikinut if you didn't notice
>"Guess my "race", please."
Homo Sapiens?
Uncanny!
just my two cents, but what the heck is wrong with people?
Humans are Humans! We are almost all exactly the same! in fact, the "races" of human don't even fit the biological definition of race! It's a social contstruct.
Culture, well, that's different. Cultures are macro and micro - and at times it seems that there are larger cultural gulfs between city blocks then country borders.
Guess my "race", please.
After all, you slashdotters all look the same to me.
Mostly like ASCII.
if you have 100 men and 1 woman you can only produce 1 child every year (give or take).
but if you have 100 women and 1 man you can create 100 offspring - and 1 happy man.
A friend of mine used this example to argue that women are more important then men.
but I think this example is actually quite moot - though interesting in it's mathematics
69 :D
only one solution.
begin hosting the trackers off of compromised machines by running p2p discovery apps.
Every single one of you will be dead by 2152.
We'll just see about that Mr. crackpot!
a friend of mine told me he thought it folly to model computational devices after the structure of the human brain.
I told him how interesting it was that the brain had short term memory and long term memory just like a computer has ram and hard drives- and how we have eyes which are like a video card and so on...
he told me it was dumb to compare computers to humans in any sense - being that the processes used by the brain vs computer were so vastly different that any comparison was rendered invalid merely by the underlying structure.
but I wasn't completely sure. after all, a chair has arms and legs and a head - but that's not to say it is exactly the same as a human body.
The chair has simply been designed to accomodate
our body-form.
in this same way I feel that computers have been designed to acoomodate our thinking-form. they operate in a way which makes sense to us.
so, this brings me back - should we be trying to make our artificial intelligences mimic the way we do things?
or perhaps, whereas the chair forms the body BUT a car uses wheels instead of legs and thus breaks from the human form, should we explore other methods of processing that are a departure from the way we know?
indeed! bless it for that too. :\
unlike [acoona.com]
try searching for google in it
well, they assign 481.2 million Chinese to read what you are typing and make suggestions!
that's how!
type that and see what the first result is :]
that we use these things for years and then someone claims they invented it?
...I would think I were a pretty unobservant guy :/
I mean, if people were flying for years and I suddenly looked up and went...OH! look! people have been using my invention for years and I never noticed!
I'm suing!
why not? HTML works on all browsers - so a simple exploit theoretically (maybe factually) could exist.
Go Team GO!
You are correct, there are no gigantic divisive issues to serve the purpose of mobilization anymore are there?
:) but it was less complex back then, I would think - perhaps every bit as complicated though. . . . or vise-versa, or neither!
also, again you are right. there is no "simple" revolution
intriguing. so basically modern oppression has learned the "less is more" maxim.
interesting and a bit unsettling. perhaps this is being exercised in the united states as well?
apathy can be a government's biggest weapon then.