Computational theory of mind.... so silly! The things you can get a billionaire to invest in when they operate on a foundation of unwarranted assumptions.
You completely ignored the part where he talked about how liberty and free association trumps all, even though he agrees with your sentiments. That makes you a bad person. By contrast, DarkOx is a very good, honest person.
The worst of all evils is meddlers doing their meddling. Stop it.
Oh, and another thing: It's not that we're "figments of some higher being's imagination". It's rather that we're figments of Being's imagination. As in, being qua being. Subsistent Being Itself. aka God.
They have a word for those frameworks that exist in the "imaginary" realm. Universes. And funnily enough, this one seems quite real-ish to me. Real, though perhaps not fundamental.
Thank you! And that's exactly what I want to know! Why do they lie? Are they even lying to themselves? It's so very perplexing.
That's why I read the news, and all the comments. I am on a long-term search to uncover how it is that a certain class of mind "thinks". Personally, I am becoming convinced that leftists are p-zombies. You can't simulate actual reasoning about real-world affairs, so the behavior of artificial, [seemingly] intelligent beings who don't seem quite right, sort of a behavioral uncanny valley, are the p-zombie red flags. These are not real people in the sense that I am a real people. That's all I got.
99.9% of the sciencey types don't get what ID is really about. It is too easy and too tempting to dismiss out of hand (and to disrespect) in the Dawkins Fan Club echo chamber, in efforts to garner lay-atheist / GNU Atheist attaboys.
So, how to distill the fundamental essence underpinning the multiple facets of ID into a brief enough sentence or two that a GNU can get through before even having a chance to give in to the desire to impress his peers and make himself feel important by buttressing his woo-flagging credentials?
ID is basically an effort to rigorously model various aspects / subsystems of living systems and / or their environments, in rigorously defined contexts, so as to provide an unambiguous analysis of how the given system under consideration changes over time, and what other sorts of systems-with-changes (of more well-understood systems that change, evolve, etc.) the given phenomenon is precisely analogous to- that we can more readily appreciate and wrap our minds around- so as to be able to confidently assess whether or not the systems under consideration evolve / change in ways that fall outside of what would otherwise be considered normal probability bounds. That is to say, ID generally wants to be able to demonstrate that phenomenon X had to have taken place in life's history in precise conditions modeled Y, and that this is inescapable, this is conservative, this is bare minimum, this is indisputable. So now one and all can clearly see that phenomenon X is entirely analogous to rolling 1,000 die 1,000 times and getting all sixes each time. Or entirely analogous to finding an electron outside its orbital 10,000 out of 10,000 times. Or whatever.
This approach does not invoke potential "miracles" as they are popularly understood. Everything in such investigations has nothing to do with logically impossible events. Such events are possible in principle, which means they should be investigated.
Of course most ID proponents think the writing is on the wall and that with information (evidence) already available, it is possible (necessary) to intuit that many such known phenomena / events in life's history qualify as being extraordinarily unlikely, as per the way things normally work. But obviously until the formalizations are rigorous enough and the evidence and data are plentiful enough such that no one can disagree without being an evident fool, there is more work to be done. All the while being open to some theories about some phenomena being entirely explicable given the "normal" or "usual" behavior / probability bounds of the systems / contexts in which they are defined / modeled. This is open mindedness. This is the true pursuit of empirical knowledge.
The popular-atheists and Dawkins-cult movements however will rule out such considerations and investigations from the outset, due to philosophical convictions of which they themselves are blissfully and fervently unaware.
Thank you for posing this question. While not a serious student of the NDE phenomenon, I am somewhat familiar. Your question is a rather large elephant in the room IMHO, and is frequently on my mind. I have never seen a good answer. In fact I never see anyone of the materialist bent even address the question.
Why should dying brains (and the minds they help facilitate) have similar experiences at all during the process of dying? Why should there be any common elements? Why should / how could the brain be making the first person, subjective experience at all possible in this circumstance? Setting that little problem aside for the moment, it's still a bit like everyone having common elements in their dreams on Monday nights, even for those who go to bed thinking it's Tuesday.
Further, there seem to be cultural influences on these common experiences. That's just weird. All of it is fascinatingly weird.
Had Martin used an umbrella and walked on a sidewalk like a normal person, likewise. Actually he may have had an umbrella for all I know. And perhaps the hood of his hoodie was not to be found on his headie. I have no idea. But neither do you idiot! So stop forming opinions. Yours are worthless anyway.
Somehow mohhomad, I doubt we will be learning of how a Martin case of SYG self defense is very plausible. Reach if you wish. Time will tell. At which time I am sure there will be a lot of move-along-nothing-to-see-here-ing.
HEY dumbass, why are you making stuff up, suggesting Martin KNEW he had a gun? FABRICATED. There is absolutely no reason to believe it was not concealed as it, by nature of being a concealed weapon, always is. (As to whether or not the presence of the weapon was known once there was a physical altercation, that is N/A, or NOT APPLICABLE. Because I know you were just about to bring that up, dumb as you are.)
Since when does "hunting someone down" universally "force confrontation"? Firstly, you don't know that he was hunting him down. Evidence (911 call) actually suggests it was a safe-distance following- and that he didn't know where Martin was, at least at one point! WHY do you ignore this???
And LOL just like a lefty to suggest that being beaten up is not sufficient to use lethal stopping force, but being FOLLOWED is LOL... It is truly PAINFUL to contemplate the workings of your brain. Because it clearly doesn't work correctly.
"You can't claim self defence when you are chasing someone down and you have a lethal weapon on your person"??? Really? How do you know he was chasing him down? What does "chasing him down" even mean? Can't use a gun for self defense if you "have a lethal weapon on your person"? Really? "How could anyone take the story of the person who did the killing seriously?" ?? Wow. Okay, if you ever need to kill someone in self defense, your account of events should automatically be discounted.
Meanwhile, if someone is ever following you, you can certainly make a legit claim of self defense should the urge to beat the party in pursuit come upon you. Got it!
Because companies change what they can, rather than a fair cost.
Because companies charge what they can rather than what is "fair"! LOL again. As if there were some other gauge of "fairness" besides "what they can get." You people will forever scare me.... blind to the truth right in front of your eyes. That is, it is the desire to inject any notion of "fair", yours or otherwise, into the equations that is the very root of the problem- and many other problems as well.
Markets are very uninformed, true. The only thing worse, however, is know-it-alls trying to inform them (by for instance baking their all-knowing information into the rules of the games). Statists never learn....
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
I think you are just the sort of scientist the grandparent was referring to- the sort to conflate hows and whys.
For you see, you did not answer the why correctly! The REAL answer for why the grass is green is because cows evolved to digest grass more quickly than the other grass eaters, and the more green the grass, the faster the cows could eat it. And the faster the cows ate the greener grass, the faster the green grass growed all around (seed dispersal). So you see, the reason WHY the grass is green is because cows evolved to digest grass better than horses did bluegrass. (The cows digested the green grass at 2x the rate that horses digested the bluegrass.)
No wait- That's not right. The realER reason why is that shorthaired dragons ate all the pelaquapods (the ancient cow's first hay eating competitor)- leaving the cows to splurge on all the world's hay- which they did. Until many millennia later, when ironically the longhaired shorttailed dragons arrived on the scene stealing every last bit of hay from the cows- forcing them to begin adapting by dabbling in grass. (Many died off due to starvation initially.) But eventually, adapt they did. And the rest, as you know, is history.
Wait, wait... one more try. Because the last remaining member of a certain species of giant squid ate a catfish that ate a carp dropping that contained the residual poison from sunk dead rats, having been poisoned by some cruel sorts aboard the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria and then themselves eaten by Arctic Carp. The last of the giant squid's demise cleared the way for the Turquoise Tortoise to move into the area and multiply- no longer fearful of being giant squid supper. Multiply they did, and for good reason. WHY you ask? So that their descendants could go forth and multiply- which they did- until finally the most special day arrived- the day their seed would give rise to a new inhabitant of the blue planet.... the first cow.
Oops- wrong again. The most REALEST reason why is this! A while back, a supernova exploded, and there were remnants. These remnants were dust, and they were us. We were stardust. THAT is why!
Actually I think you were really talking about hows, not whys. It seems that you latched on to an amalgamation of hows, creating in your own mind the illusory emergent property of the why- after which you took this imaginary why, compatible with your ends as it was, and used it to make yourself feel and appear scientific. And that's the how of it.
This is madness..... can't.....resist.....replying!
-- God is.
-- God is, and there is nothing (else.)
-- God initiates creation (in this case, our "universe.")
-- Funny creature creations (men) exist in the larger creation.
-- Many of said funny creatures deny the possibility that knowledge from God to creation is knowable. - LOL
-- (This is based on a commitment to philosophical naturalism (a belief/faith, presuppositional sort of knowledge.)) - LOLOL
-- Many of same said funny creatures use experiences in creation to ascribe to God properties, attributes, characteristics. - LOLOLOL
-- Many funny creatures even go so far as to characterize God as "evil." - LOLOLOLOL
-- Yes, this is even AFTER they chastise theists of varying stripes about anthropomorphizing! - LOLOLOLOLOL
-- This sort fails to realize that outside of a created order (and the "experiences" accumulated and interpreted in the "brains" of created creatures within the order) "evil" has no necessary existence. - LOLOLOLOLOLOL
-- In other words, unless the CREATOR (in this case, lets say God) decides that "evil" exists, defines it, and shares this knowledge with inquiring portions of creation, then there is no EVIL. - LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-- Instead, there is only, "Sucks to be you!" and "I bet you hope the universe doesn't decide to chew you up and spit you out today. But it might! Cheers!" LOL... tired of typing LOL.
But it has been fun making fun (re: LOLz) of you today.
Slashdot Mirror
He was predominantly talking to people that shape policy within a public company about the shaping of company policy.
How DARE he!
Not just no, but HELL NO
Computational theory of mind.... so silly! The things you can get a billionaire to invest in when they operate on a foundation of unwarranted assumptions.
You completely ignored the part where he talked about how liberty and free association trumps all, even though he agrees with your sentiments. That makes you a bad person. By contrast, DarkOx is a very good, honest person.
The worst of all evils is meddlers doing their meddling. Stop it.
Oh, and another thing: It's not that we're "figments of some higher being's imagination". It's rather that we're figments of Being's imagination. As in, being qua being. Subsistent Being Itself. aka God.
They have a word for those frameworks that exist in the "imaginary" realm. Universes. And funnily enough, this one seems quite real-ish to me. Real, though perhaps not fundamental.
Junk seems to be amazingly capable. I seem to be learning of its doing more and more with each passing day. Impressive stuff.
Thank you! And that's exactly what I want to know! Why do they lie? Are they even lying to themselves? It's so very perplexing.
That's why I read the news, and all the comments. I am on a long-term search to uncover how it is that a certain class of mind "thinks". Personally, I am becoming convinced that leftists are p-zombies. You can't simulate actual reasoning about real-world affairs, so the behavior of artificial, [seemingly] intelligent beings who don't seem quite right, sort of a behavioral uncanny valley, are the p-zombie red flags. These are not real people in the sense that I am a real people. That's all I got.
99.9% of the sciencey types don't get what ID is really about. It is too easy and too tempting to dismiss out of hand (and to disrespect) in the Dawkins Fan Club echo chamber, in efforts to garner lay-atheist / GNU Atheist attaboys.
So, how to distill the fundamental essence underpinning the multiple facets of ID into a brief enough sentence or two that a GNU can get through before even having a chance to give in to the desire to impress his peers and make himself feel important by buttressing his woo-flagging credentials?
ID is basically an effort to rigorously model various aspects / subsystems of living systems and / or their environments, in rigorously defined contexts, so as to provide an unambiguous analysis of how the given system under consideration changes over time, and what other sorts of systems-with-changes (of more well-understood systems that change, evolve, etc.) the given phenomenon is precisely analogous to- that we can more readily appreciate and wrap our minds around- so as to be able to confidently assess whether or not the systems under consideration evolve / change in ways that fall outside of what would otherwise be considered normal probability bounds. That is to say, ID generally wants to be able to demonstrate that phenomenon X had to have taken place in life's history in precise conditions modeled Y, and that this is inescapable, this is conservative, this is bare minimum, this is indisputable. So now one and all can clearly see that phenomenon X is entirely analogous to rolling 1,000 die 1,000 times and getting all sixes each time. Or entirely analogous to finding an electron outside its orbital 10,000 out of 10,000 times. Or whatever.
This approach does not invoke potential "miracles" as they are popularly understood. Everything in such investigations has nothing to do with logically impossible events. Such events are possible in principle, which means they should be investigated.
Of course most ID proponents think the writing is on the wall and that with information (evidence) already available, it is possible (necessary) to intuit that many such known phenomena / events in life's history qualify as being extraordinarily unlikely, as per the way things normally work. But obviously until the formalizations are rigorous enough and the evidence and data are plentiful enough such that no one can disagree without being an evident fool, there is more work to be done. All the while being open to some theories about some phenomena being entirely explicable given the "normal" or "usual" behavior / probability bounds of the systems / contexts in which they are defined / modeled. This is open mindedness. This is the true pursuit of empirical knowledge.
The popular-atheists and Dawkins-cult movements however will rule out such considerations and investigations from the outset, due to philosophical convictions of which they themselves are blissfully and fervently unaware.
I would love to hear more about this nothing. I never knew something could be so fascinating and capable as nothing.
Any consultant worth anything wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot.... user interface.
Thank you for posing this question. While not a serious student of the NDE phenomenon, I am somewhat familiar. Your question is a rather large elephant in the room IMHO, and is frequently on my mind. I have never seen a good answer. In fact I never see anyone of the materialist bent even address the question.
Why should dying brains (and the minds they help facilitate) have similar experiences at all during the process of dying? Why should there be any common elements? Why should / how could the brain be making the first person, subjective experience at all possible in this circumstance? Setting that little problem aside for the moment, it's still a bit like everyone having common elements in their dreams on Monday nights, even for those who go to bed thinking it's Tuesday.
Further, there seem to be cultural influences on these common experiences. That's just weird. All of it is fascinatingly weird.
You should be careful asking such questions. Oh, AC! Nevermind then, carry on.
On second thought.... I hope you are further anonymized.
Had Martin used an umbrella and walked on a sidewalk like a normal person, likewise. Actually he may have had an umbrella for all I know. And perhaps the hood of his hoodie was not to be found on his headie. I have no idea. But neither do you idiot! So stop forming opinions. Yours are worthless anyway.
mmhmmmm slam dunk, ichthus
Somehow mohhomad, I doubt we will be learning of how a Martin case of SYG self defense is very plausible. Reach if you wish. Time will tell. At which time I am sure there will be a lot of move-along-nothing-to-see-here-ing.
HEY dumbass, why are you making stuff up, suggesting Martin KNEW he had a gun? FABRICATED. There is absolutely no reason to believe it was not concealed as it, by nature of being a concealed weapon, always is. (As to whether or not the presence of the weapon was known once there was a physical altercation, that is N/A, or NOT APPLICABLE. Because I know you were just about to bring that up, dumb as you are.)
Since when does "hunting someone down" universally "force confrontation"? Firstly, you don't know that he was hunting him down. Evidence (911 call) actually suggests it was a safe-distance following- and that he didn't know where Martin was, at least at one point! WHY do you ignore this???
And LOL just like a lefty to suggest that being beaten up is not sufficient to use lethal stopping force, but being FOLLOWED is LOL... It is truly PAINFUL to contemplate the workings of your brain. Because it clearly doesn't work correctly.
Filthy racebaiter.
You're a sick retard, huh?
"You can't claim self defence when you are chasing someone down and you have a lethal weapon on your person"??? Really? How do you know he was chasing him down? What does "chasing him down" even mean? Can't use a gun for self defense if you "have a lethal weapon on your person"? Really? "How could anyone take the story of the person who did the killing seriously?" ?? Wow. Okay, if you ever need to kill someone in self defense, your account of events should automatically be discounted.
Meanwhile, if someone is ever following you, you can certainly make a legit claim of self defense should the urge to beat the party in pursuit come upon you. Got it!
It really is a mental disorder.
Because companies charge what they can rather than what is "fair"! LOL again. As if there were some other gauge of "fairness" besides "what they can get." You people will forever scare me.... blind to the truth right in front of your eyes. That is, it is the desire to inject any notion of "fair", yours or otherwise, into the equations that is the very root of the problem- and many other problems as well.
Markets are very uninformed, true. The only thing worse, however, is know-it-alls trying to inform them (by for instance baking their all-knowing information into the rules of the games). Statists never learn....
no reply to this? smelch you nailed it!
Nurf! You have done EXCELLENT work here. Please allow me to call you friend. I hope many Slashdot readers will permit themselves to comprehend.
I think you are just the sort of scientist the grandparent was referring to- the sort to conflate hows and whys. For you see, you did not answer the why correctly! The REAL answer for why the grass is green is because cows evolved to digest grass more quickly than the other grass eaters, and the more green the grass, the faster the cows could eat it. And the faster the cows ate the greener grass, the faster the green grass growed all around (seed dispersal). So you see, the reason WHY the grass is green is because cows evolved to digest grass better than horses did bluegrass. (The cows digested the green grass at 2x the rate that horses digested the bluegrass.)
No wait- That's not right. The realER reason why is that shorthaired dragons ate all the pelaquapods (the ancient cow's first hay eating competitor)- leaving the cows to splurge on all the world's hay- which they did. Until many millennia later, when ironically the longhaired shorttailed dragons arrived on the scene stealing every last bit of hay from the cows- forcing them to begin adapting by dabbling in grass. (Many died off due to starvation initially.) But eventually, adapt they did. And the rest, as you know, is history.
Wait, wait... one more try. Because the last remaining member of a certain species of giant squid ate a catfish that ate a carp dropping that contained the residual poison from sunk dead rats, having been poisoned by some cruel sorts aboard the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria and then themselves eaten by Arctic Carp. The last of the giant squid's demise cleared the way for the Turquoise Tortoise to move into the area and multiply- no longer fearful of being giant squid supper. Multiply they did, and for good reason. WHY you ask? So that their descendants could go forth and multiply- which they did- until finally the most special day arrived- the day their seed would give rise to a new inhabitant of the blue planet.... the first cow.
Oops- wrong again. The most REALEST reason why is this! A while back, a supernova exploded, and there were remnants. These remnants were dust, and they were us. We were stardust. THAT is why!
Actually I think you were really talking about hows, not whys. It seems that you latched on to an amalgamation of hows, creating in your own mind the illusory emergent property of the why- after which you took this imaginary why, compatible with your ends as it was, and used it to make yourself feel and appear scientific. And that's the how of it.
This is madness..... can't.....resist.....replying!
-- God is.
-- God is, and there is nothing (else.)
-- God initiates creation (in this case, our "universe.")
-- Funny creature creations (men) exist in the larger creation.
-- Many of said funny creatures deny the possibility that knowledge from God to creation is knowable. - LOL
-- (This is based on a commitment to philosophical naturalism (a belief/faith, presuppositional sort of knowledge.)) - LOLOL
-- Many of same said funny creatures use experiences in creation to ascribe to God properties, attributes, characteristics. - LOLOLOL
-- Many funny creatures even go so far as to characterize God as "evil." - LOLOLOLOL
-- Yes, this is even AFTER they chastise theists of varying stripes about anthropomorphizing! - LOLOLOLOLOL
-- This sort fails to realize that outside of a created order (and the "experiences" accumulated and interpreted in the "brains" of created creatures within the order) "evil" has no necessary existence. - LOLOLOLOLOLOL
-- In other words, unless the CREATOR (in this case, lets say God) decides that "evil" exists, defines it, and shares this knowledge with inquiring portions of creation, then there is no EVIL. - LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-- Instead, there is only, "Sucks to be you!" and "I bet you hope the universe doesn't decide to chew you up and spit you out today. But it might! Cheers!" LOL... tired of typing LOL.
But it has been fun making fun (re: LOLz) of you today.
Then why don't you become more active and get some good candidates to primary? Oh I get it... it's not your job. But apparently it is everyone else's.