I have to agree with you (and Dyson). Al Gore looses his argument as soon as he says that a concensus has been reached. Science simply doesn't work that way!
Would you say that biological scientists have reached a consensus about evolution?
So you go to 1000 doctors and they all tell you, "Stop eating potato chips or you'll have a heart attack."
Then one guy who writes novels says, "They just hate potato chips", and another retired doctor says "Maybe you won't get a heart attack, you'll just be fat and look older than you are."
Pascal would say it's illogical to stop eating potato chips?
"- Massive unemployment" - why? Why would new energy jobs automatically be fewer than old energy jobs?
"- greatly increased worldwide poverty" - why?
"- advances in technology not made or delayed by many years" - solar, wind, nuclear and goethermal aren't technology?
"- thousands of brilliant scientists wasting their lives in pursuit of nonsense" - aren't the scientists the best judgement of that?
"- government tyranny and possible permanent loss of freedom" - HOW??? That's total science fiction.
"- extreme drops in living standards" - as opposed to the worst case scenario of Global Warming?
potential secondary effects:
"- wars (possibly WWII-scale wars)" - as opposed to wars over oil resources?
"- famine" - as opposed to famine caused by our current (and increasing) freshwater shortage - and the spoiling of freshwater by encroaching seawater?
"- millions dead from diseases not cured" - see above, replace 'famine' with 'disease'
"- developing countries halt their progress in developing (or it takes another 50-100 years)" - as if they aren't going to run out of oil with the rest of us?
Progress saves lives - and research in alternate energy technologies is progress. Isn't it?
So don't do those things.
Do the things that make sense. Like investing in clean energy. That means jobs and technology that can't be outsourced overseas.
Or electric cars. Even if we never run out of oil - which is a fantasy, we all know we will run out - that will be a good thing. If we have to switch to goal, we can still drive places.
Aren't those good things, even if global warming never actually happens?
Michael Crichton in particular is annoying for this. Just because someone's a good novelist doesn't make them a good scientist. Imaging the reverse - do scientists automatically write great novels? If so, Einstein would have outsold Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Here's what's wrong with your metaphor: it should be more like:
3000 mechanics say car transmissions will need to replaced within a year. So start saving your money now, or start thinking about how you'll get to work if it breaks down.
Your local congressman agrees.
*But* your buddy who writes science fiction novels, and a guy who builds great boats everyone likes, say those mechanics are probably wrong. But they don't offer a coherent explanation for why your car's gears are slipping and making that awful grinding noise.
So you tell the 3000 mechanics to stop ripping you off, and keep downshifting in the fast lane? Good idea? Or no?
Al Gore's not disagreeing.
If you are disputing the majority consensus of an entire field of experts, you should at least be able to show that you have studied the matter somewhat near as much as they have.
Because I know how to fix a car's alternator, doesn't mean I automatically know how to fix a truck's transmission. So if I tell someone a truck mechanic is ripping them off, I should at least know what I'm talking about.
This is because Al Gore is agreeing with the experts.
Michael Crichton is disagreeing with the experts - and that's his privilege. However, he is saying that his knowledge and judgement are **superio** to experts who have put their lives into a certain field. Therefore, to disagree with the experts, he should be able *disprove* them. To show superior facts and knowledge. Rather than just say there must be some way they're all wrong, and not propose any alternative theories or evidence that explains the same data.
Freeman Dyson on the surface carries more weight than Crichton, being of a deeper scientific background - however, it still is not his field *and* he's disagreeing with the experts. Therefore he starts at zero, and must build his case.
Think of it as if I am getting a diagnosis - a doctor says I'm in danger of a heart attack if I don't lose weight.
All the other doctors I go to agree. My local Congressman (Al Gore) agrees, so he doesn't need to disprove the doctor. But this other guy who's not a doctor but writes General Hospital (Michael Crichton) episodes *disagrees*. AND this other retired doctor who's background is neuroscience disagrees (Dyson) - but it's not his field.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Personally I don't see why people have such a problem dealing with Global Warming as a possibility. Let's say we put a lot of work into avoiding Global Warming, and it turns out Global Warming wouldn't have happened anyway - we have a cleaner, more efficient world and a bunch of new jobs in new industries. That's a problem?
Consider what JFK's assassination did - not only did it nearly wipe out the hope of an entire generation, it changed of the policies, initiatives and strategies of America, and created a different future for America and the world.
People aren't simply swappable, especially at the top. Everyone does things differently; and groups of humans do not respond predictably, orderly or many times even decently to drastic change.
- how do random non-torrented P2p files get shared? P2p user would have to give read access to entire drive to the entire world. Who EVER does that? Let alone someone working for a defense contractor??
It's possible, but unbelievably stupid - and unlikely for someone who knows enough to use p2p in the frickin' first place.
- WHY would such a person, who seemingly likes their job, do this on a work computer *and/or* leave this work file on the same computer?
- why doesn't the article mention that this information is NOT classified?
My tinfoil hat tingles, as I realize Obama recently turned down funding for a new helicopter.
I think this is a way to have a rationale for a defense contractor to push for funding for a new helicopter, and/or a way for this "Internet security company" to make a name for itself with FUD.
According to the article, the company that unearthed this p2p plot, Tiversa, is connected to the Pentagon via Gen. Wesley Clark as the company's "adviser". Doesn't that make my tinfoil hat tingle.
Very interesting take on things! Obama just said recently that he didn't see a need to replace his current helicopter, with a more expensive model.
Then suddenly these non-classified plans "happen" to be shared with "Iran" in a way that gets pinned to a contractor and e-vill p2p'ers, and suddenly there's a new rationale to get the new helicopter pushed through.
Unlike many conspiracy theories, this one explains *more* questions than it raises.
"* we've always been at war with Eastasia, right?"
Sure! After all, it's still 1984. They eighties are coming back, because they never left.
Which at least means the Police are still together, and I can go see them. The musical group, that is. The other police, I'm not so eager to go and see...
This other possibility of time travel, that it actually allows an instantaneous travel through space, has been explored by both Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov. It really does have some scary implications - it makes interstellar warfare easy and utterly impossible to defend against. Set your time machine to plop you 1/10000th of a second ago, and set the place it appears to be inside your enemy's capitol. Then strap a bomb to it - and pray he has no way to find out where *you* are.
I saw Sprint's horns years ago, when they rolled out a new innovation in evil - ***charging me extra*** per call to their own customer service. A nice way to make money off of how they messed my account in the first place.
Maybe they've changed since then, but I still hold onto my grudge.
I'm not dodging your question. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, or you're misunderstanding my answers.
Basically, I agree with this statement of yours 100%:
I never said you should completely invalidate it. I merely said that you can't rely on it, and that it must be checked.
But if that's your position, then that seems a bit far from your original post I responded to:
The two times that you and your lover tried to call each other simultaneously stand out in your brain far more than the hundred thousand times that it didn't happen, and even though probability tells you that there's an obvious explanation for what happened, your brain is built in such a way that you will think it's important.
That quote from your earlier post I actually agree with, in substance. But in implication, it just seems so very certain that all subjective experiences which contradict this materialistic view of reality are definitely "wrong". As opposed to "maybe" or even "probably wrong", or even "almost certainly wrong".
And it's that notion that it's *definitely* wrong, which is what I'm disagreeing with.
I don't know if Sprint is opposed to uncontrolled phones using their network, but I *expect* they would be. I expect this because Sprint is the fucking devil.
I don't know about Verizon.
It contradicts it for me personally, because this is an experience that I've had.
But my inner subjective experience is not felt directly by you. So that's why I would not say it is definitely objectively true.
At the same time, because I have this experience that has occurred to me, it doesn't make sense to me to state that it's objectively false. That would be going against direct information and evidence that I've experienced.
So I choose to have it either way, depending on what works best for the situation.
I agree that some individual events and experiences can be nearly meaningless at an *objective* level. And I agree that brains and minds can map reality in ways which produce many different answers. I think some of this is the brain and mind - and I also think some of this is due to reality.
But the human brain and the mind it supports is not built to be objective; it's built to aid survival and propagation. So it makes sense to me to give credence to objective tools that enable us to *check* on our perceptions and keep them in line with outside validation, whenever possible.
But it also makes sense to me to not automatically completely invalidate my subjective experience in favor of these same objective tools.
For every time you spot a friend and he spots you, there are many incidences where he doesn't, and you just don't remark on it because it's, well, not remarkable.
Sure, that's one very reasonable take on it. But the personal experience I have had contradicts that. It indicates a different phenomenon is operating.
Now, that's an experience that *I've* had. So to me, it's a fact - or at least one item of observed data. But it's quite understandably not a fact for you - because you haven't experienced it. (Or if you have, you don't give it the same credence I do.)
So, it would certainly be unreasonable of me to say my subjective experience should trump yours, or trump principles based on attempts to not have to rely on subjective observation - AKA science.
But that doesn't mean my subjective experience is automatically trumped by other experiences or principles, either. A flat rule like that which automatically invalidates my perceptions, is not reasonable either.
Basically, until someone outsmarts Godel's theorm and/or becomes God and/or realizes they already are God and/or something else happens - perfect truth is unattainable.
And since Truth, like all perfection, is meant to be reached for despite (or because of) the fact that its ultimately unreachable, I'm going with what works best for each situation but I see no need to close off other possibilities so completely.
Basically, these different ideas, concepts and theories are all information. Some of it applies and is useful in some ways, some of it applies and is useful in others. None of it is necessarily "true". It's all about what works.
So my suggested solution is to call neither situation the Truth. In essence, I don't have to pick one.:)
And in my own life, I tend to make better decisions regarding others when it's based on observable fact - but when it comes to my inner world, that's not necessarily what works.
I meant to day, reread the post by AugstWest (79042), about 5 posts up from this one. But not for the anecdote, just the spirit of what I'm saying.
And yes, Rhine's experiments weren't replicated. That's why such psychic phenomenon isn't proven. At the same time, such unexplained things happen often enough, and to enough credible witness, that I don't personally think all possibility should be discounted.
As for documented examples, I'd point you towards all the Fortean phenomena. One of the larger ones for me, is the novel written about "The Sinking of the Titan", 12 years before the Titanic launched and sank - which described the same basic displacement, number of passengers, only the legal minimum of lifeboats, month of launching, and demise. Now, this and many other phenomena are explainable by random chance, selection bias, etc. That's why I wouldn't bet any money on them.
At the same time, I personally have had experiences that have led me to believe that consciousness can interact in ways that are beyond the strictly physically material.
My favorite mundane example of this, is this: I'd be sitting on a bus, looking out the window at a crowd on a street. I'd see someone I knew, who wasn't looking at me. Sometimes even their back would be turned. Yet somehow they would seem to feel my awareness, and turn and look directly at me. They wouldn't turn for any other discernible reason; and they wouldn't stop and examine every possible set of eyes that could be looking at them. It really seems they would be responding directly to my awareness touching theirs.
Now just like the Fortean examples, this can be explained in many other ways. But in this specific example, having absolute certainty in some purely physical cause actually seems to be *denying* inconvenient evidence: the actual experience of the event.
In any case, saying it's possible is quite fair and good enough for me. I wouldn't bet against science; I just think there's phenomenon going on here that hasn't been fully defined by science yet.
I think you should read the first post in this thread again. And also read up on the Rhine experiments, as only one example.
Strange things happen all the time, and they don't have to all simply be misperception. Sure, our brains are great at making connections which aren't really there. But there also *countless* probability-defying examples of people's minds making connections which ARE there - but which they would have no possible way of knowing, if our brains are really "just meat".
After all, consciousness itself is a metaphysical phenomenon. It is generated by physical means, as far as we know; and it very well may not outlast our physical components. But it still is something that is more than merely matter; that in itself should tell you that other forms of more-than-matter are at least *possible*, if not probable.
I may be wrong re: pre-emptive pardon - but surely specific people have to be pardoned, at least. So there would have to be some sort of an investigation into who even is *suspected* of doing what, for a pardon to even occur...which the Bush administration would still rather avoid.
I think the hangup there is, someone has to be convicted of a crime before they can be pardoned. And a conviction requires an investigation.
And Bush et al would much prefer there is no further investigation at all.
Because:
1) I am SURE none of those telcos would have participated in this activity without complete and total assurances from the Bush administration...which these companies will produce if they think for a second they will be convicted.
2) It seems quite likely that any convictions will occur during the Obama administration - which almost certainly won't pardon the telcos. Why would Obama put his neck out, for things which didn't even occur during his administration?
Slashdot Mirror
Would you say that biological scientists have reached a consensus about evolution?
Seems to me that they have...
Then one guy who writes novels says, "They just hate potato chips", and another retired doctor says "Maybe you won't get a heart attack, you'll just be fat and look older than you are."
Pascal would say it's illogical to stop eating potato chips?
"- Massive unemployment" - why? Why would new energy jobs automatically be fewer than old energy jobs?
"- greatly increased worldwide poverty" - why?
"- advances in technology not made or delayed by many years" - solar, wind, nuclear and goethermal aren't technology?
"- thousands of brilliant scientists wasting their lives in pursuit of nonsense" - aren't the scientists the best judgement of that?
"- government tyranny and possible permanent loss of freedom" - HOW??? That's total science fiction.
"- extreme drops in living standards" - as opposed to the worst case scenario of Global Warming?
potential secondary effects:
"- wars (possibly WWII-scale wars)" - as opposed to wars over oil resources?
"- famine" - as opposed to famine caused by our current (and increasing) freshwater shortage - and the spoiling of freshwater by encroaching seawater?
"- millions dead from diseases not cured" - see above, replace 'famine' with 'disease'
"- developing countries halt their progress in developing (or it takes another 50-100 years)" - as if they aren't going to run out of oil with the rest of us?
Progress saves lives - and research in alternate energy technologies is progress. Isn't it?
So don't do those things. Do the things that make sense. Like investing in clean energy. That means jobs and technology that can't be outsourced overseas. Or electric cars. Even if we never run out of oil - which is a fantasy, we all know we will run out - that will be a good thing. If we have to switch to goal, we can still drive places. Aren't those good things, even if global warming never actually happens?
Michael Crichton in particular is annoying for this. Just because someone's a good novelist doesn't make them a good scientist. Imaging the reverse - do scientists automatically write great novels? If so, Einstein would have outsold Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Hit submit too early: my other post should say "3000 mechanics say *your* car's transmission will need to replaced within a year. "
3000 mechanics say car transmissions will need to replaced within a year. So start saving your money now, or start thinking about how you'll get to work if it breaks down.
Your local congressman agrees.
*But* your buddy who writes science fiction novels, and a guy who builds great boats everyone likes, say those mechanics are probably wrong. But they don't offer a coherent explanation for why your car's gears are slipping and making that awful grinding noise.
So you tell the 3000 mechanics to stop ripping you off, and keep downshifting in the fast lane? Good idea? Or no?
Al Gore's not disagreeing. If you are disputing the majority consensus of an entire field of experts, you should at least be able to show that you have studied the matter somewhat near as much as they have. Because I know how to fix a car's alternator, doesn't mean I automatically know how to fix a truck's transmission. So if I tell someone a truck mechanic is ripping them off, I should at least know what I'm talking about.
Michael Crichton is disagreeing with the experts - and that's his privilege. However, he is saying that his knowledge and judgement are **superio** to experts who have put their lives into a certain field. Therefore, to disagree with the experts, he should be able *disprove* them. To show superior facts and knowledge. Rather than just say there must be some way they're all wrong, and not propose any alternative theories or evidence that explains the same data.
Freeman Dyson on the surface carries more weight than Crichton, being of a deeper scientific background - however, it still is not his field *and* he's disagreeing with the experts. Therefore he starts at zero, and must build his case.
Think of it as if I am getting a diagnosis - a doctor says I'm in danger of a heart attack if I don't lose weight.
All the other doctors I go to agree. My local Congressman (Al Gore) agrees, so he doesn't need to disprove the doctor. But this other guy who's not a doctor but writes General Hospital (Michael Crichton) episodes *disagrees*. AND this other retired doctor who's background is neuroscience disagrees (Dyson) - but it's not his field.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Personally I don't see why people have such a problem dealing with Global Warming as a possibility. Let's say we put a lot of work into avoiding Global Warming, and it turns out Global Warming wouldn't have happened anyway - we have a cleaner, more efficient world and a bunch of new jobs in new industries. That's a problem?
Consider what JFK's assassination did - not only did it nearly wipe out the hope of an entire generation, it changed of the policies, initiatives and strategies of America, and created a different future for America and the world. People aren't simply swappable, especially at the top. Everyone does things differently; and groups of humans do not respond predictably, orderly or many times even decently to drastic change.
It's possible, but unbelievably stupid - and unlikely for someone who knows enough to use p2p in the frickin' first place.
- WHY would such a person, who seemingly likes their job, do this on a work computer *and/or* leave this work file on the same computer?
- why doesn't the article mention that this information is NOT classified?
My tinfoil hat tingles, as I realize Obama recently turned down funding for a new helicopter.
I think this is a way to have a rationale for a defense contractor to push for funding for a new helicopter, and/or a way for this "Internet security company" to make a name for itself with FUD.
According to the article, the company that unearthed this p2p plot, Tiversa, is connected to the Pentagon via Gen. Wesley Clark as the company's "adviser". Doesn't that make my tinfoil hat tingle.
Very interesting take on things! Obama just said recently that he didn't see a need to replace his current helicopter, with a more expensive model. Then suddenly these non-classified plans "happen" to be shared with "Iran" in a way that gets pinned to a contractor and e-vill p2p'ers, and suddenly there's a new rationale to get the new helicopter pushed through. Unlike many conspiracy theories, this one explains *more* questions than it raises.
"* we've always been at war with Eastasia, right?" Sure! After all, it's still 1984. They eighties are coming back, because they never left. Which at least means the Police are still together, and I can go see them. The musical group, that is. The other police, I'm not so eager to go and see...
This other possibility of time travel, that it actually allows an instantaneous travel through space, has been explored by both Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov. It really does have some scary implications - it makes interstellar warfare easy and utterly impossible to defend against. Set your time machine to plop you 1/10000th of a second ago, and set the place it appears to be inside your enemy's capitol. Then strap a bomb to it - and pray he has no way to find out where *you* are.
Which brings us back to poor Calvin Klein and his hot 50's teenage bad girl / mom issues...
I saw Sprint's horns years ago, when they rolled out a new innovation in evil - ***charging me extra*** per call to their own customer service. A nice way to make money off of how they messed my account in the first place.
Maybe they've changed since then, but I still hold onto my grudge.
Basically, I agree with this statement of yours 100%:
But if that's your position, then that seems a bit far from your original post I responded to:
That quote from your earlier post I actually agree with, in substance. But in implication, it just seems so very certain that all subjective experiences which contradict this materialistic view of reality are definitely "wrong". As opposed to "maybe" or even "probably wrong", or even "almost certainly wrong".
And it's that notion that it's *definitely* wrong, which is what I'm disagreeing with.
So perhaps we actually have no disagreement.
I don't know if Sprint is opposed to uncontrolled phones using their network, but I *expect* they would be. I expect this because Sprint is the fucking devil. I don't know about Verizon.
It contradicts it for me personally, because this is an experience that I've had.
But my inner subjective experience is not felt directly by you. So that's why I would not say it is definitely objectively true.
At the same time, because I have this experience that has occurred to me, it doesn't make sense to me to state that it's objectively false. That would be going against direct information and evidence that I've experienced.
So I choose to have it either way, depending on what works best for the situation.
I agree that some individual events and experiences can be nearly meaningless at an *objective* level. And I agree that brains and minds can map reality in ways which produce many different answers. I think some of this is the brain and mind - and I also think some of this is due to reality.
But the human brain and the mind it supports is not built to be objective; it's built to aid survival and propagation. So it makes sense to me to give credence to objective tools that enable us to *check* on our perceptions and keep them in line with outside validation, whenever possible.
But it also makes sense to me to not automatically completely invalidate my subjective experience in favor of these same objective tools.
Sure, that's one very reasonable take on it. But the personal experience I have had contradicts that. It indicates a different phenomenon is operating.
Now, that's an experience that *I've* had. So to me, it's a fact - or at least one item of observed data. But it's quite understandably not a fact for you - because you haven't experienced it. (Or if you have, you don't give it the same credence I do.)
So, it would certainly be unreasonable of me to say my subjective experience should trump yours, or trump principles based on attempts to not have to rely on subjective observation - AKA science.
But that doesn't mean my subjective experience is automatically trumped by other experiences or principles, either. A flat rule like that which automatically invalidates my perceptions, is not reasonable either.
Basically, until someone outsmarts Godel's theorm and/or becomes God and/or realizes they already are God and/or something else happens - perfect truth is unattainable. And since Truth, like all perfection, is meant to be reached for despite (or because of) the fact that its ultimately unreachable, I'm going with what works best for each situation but I see no need to close off other possibilities so completely.
Basically, these different ideas, concepts and theories are all information. Some of it applies and is useful in some ways, some of it applies and is useful in others. None of it is necessarily "true". It's all about what works.
So my suggested solution is to call neither situation the Truth. In essence, I don't have to pick one. :)
And in my own life, I tend to make better decisions regarding others when it's based on observable fact - but when it comes to my inner world, that's not necessarily what works.
So for me, it's all about the maybe.
And yes, Rhine's experiments weren't replicated. That's why such psychic phenomenon isn't proven. At the same time, such unexplained things happen often enough, and to enough credible witness, that I don't personally think all possibility should be discounted.
As for documented examples, I'd point you towards all the Fortean phenomena. One of the larger ones for me, is the novel written about "The Sinking of the Titan", 12 years before the Titanic launched and sank - which described the same basic displacement, number of passengers, only the legal minimum of lifeboats, month of launching, and demise. Now, this and many other phenomena are explainable by random chance, selection bias, etc. That's why I wouldn't bet any money on them.
At the same time, I personally have had experiences that have led me to believe that consciousness can interact in ways that are beyond the strictly physically material.
My favorite mundane example of this, is this: I'd be sitting on a bus, looking out the window at a crowd on a street. I'd see someone I knew, who wasn't looking at me. Sometimes even their back would be turned. Yet somehow they would seem to feel my awareness, and turn and look directly at me. They wouldn't turn for any other discernible reason; and they wouldn't stop and examine every possible set of eyes that could be looking at them. It really seems they would be responding directly to my awareness touching theirs.
Now just like the Fortean examples, this can be explained in many other ways. But in this specific example, having absolute certainty in some purely physical cause actually seems to be *denying* inconvenient evidence: the actual experience of the event.
In any case, saying it's possible is quite fair and good enough for me. I wouldn't bet against science; I just think there's phenomenon going on here that hasn't been fully defined by science yet.
http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?s=64f3739b65d34dc1e9ed83f26151baac&showtopic=138694 That said, I'm still having trouble getting OSX86 to work on my Intel box, so hackeat emptor. I don't know how to write my own sound drivers for my PC Intel motherboard, so that's hangup there...
Strange things happen all the time, and they don't have to all simply be misperception. Sure, our brains are great at making connections which aren't really there. But there also *countless* probability-defying examples of people's minds making connections which ARE there - but which they would have no possible way of knowing, if our brains are really "just meat".
After all, consciousness itself is a metaphysical phenomenon. It is generated by physical means, as far as we know; and it very well may not outlast our physical components. But it still is something that is more than merely matter; that in itself should tell you that other forms of more-than-matter are at least *possible*, if not probable.
I may be wrong re: pre-emptive pardon - but surely specific people have to be pardoned, at least. So there would have to be some sort of an investigation into who even is *suspected* of doing what, for a pardon to even occur...which the Bush administration would still rather avoid.
And Bush et al would much prefer there is no further investigation at all.
Because:
1) I am SURE none of those telcos would have participated in this activity without complete and total assurances from the Bush administration...which these companies will produce if they think for a second they will be convicted.
2) It seems quite likely that any convictions will occur during the Obama administration - which almost certainly won't pardon the telcos. Why would Obama put his neck out, for things which didn't even occur during his administration?