Climate Change is real, it is man made and only people who think New Earth Creationism is a good idea could be so dumb as to ignore it.
Yes, climate change has been going on for as long as there has been a climate. However, it doesn't advance the discussion, and only shows your own ignorance, that the best arguement you can make is to call those who disagree with you "dumb."
Saying that both sides "have lied" and so "the truth is somewhere in between" somehow puts paid industry propagandists on the same credibility level as professional climate research scientists.
I agree, it's a huge mistake to put paid shills like Al Gore on the same credibility level with actual scientists. But even more importantly, we should remember that science has nothing to do with credibility or consensus, but EVIDENCE. (And as a software developer, I have to insist that computer climate models do not count as evidence -- at least not until such models are tested over the long term against actual results.)
I agree that neither LCD nor Plasma is enough better than the old-fashioned CRT that I would want to replace mine with one of those. The main thing against them is "pixel size"; the smallest possible pixel on a modern CRT allows it to easily and cleanly support a huge list of different screen-resolutions, while the pixels of LCD and plasma units are so much larger that they can only cleanly support a very limited list --else the image just plain looks ugly.
It has nothing to do with pixel size. The effect you are referring to is from the fact that the positions and spacings of the pixels are physically fixed in the LCD. With a CRT, they are dynamically positioned, and so can be changed (or, OTOH, start drifting around). But how many different resolutions do you need??? Why not just get the LCD that has the resolution you want.
Oh, and the whole Europe were pwned by the Nazis, no doubt that yours would have been too if it was in this area at that time...
We were in the area at the time... liberating your miserable ungreatful butts. Well at least you're spreading the good will by helping to liberate and Iraq. Oh, wait, you're not. You first argued for appeasing Saddam, and now that the Iraqis are going to hang Saddam, you're arguing for appeasing Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, is not even ASKING for appeasement, like Hitler did. They're just trying to incite large-scale war at any price. In short, I think the jokes are entirely appropriate.
That's a good point, but it only applies to surface liquids. Now, I suppose that if there is literally *no* atmosphere, then over time you will lose whatever gas/liquid resources you start with. But as a matter of organism survival, any solid planet with geological processes is going have plenty of opportunity for subterranean liquid and gas.
I wouldn't be too interested in having them wasting efforts in finding those as they'll probably have trouble holding an atmosphere to harbor life anyway.
This kind of reasoning is ubiquitous, but it always bothers me. We only know of one kind of life (terrestrial life), but even that kind of life doesn't require a gaseous atmosphere. Only certain terrestrial species require an atmosphere. Even those species, such as mammals, reptiles, and birds, only require an atmosphere after birth, and get along just fine without it up until then. So on the one hand, assuming that all life is very similar to terrestrial life, I find nothing to suggest that an atmosphere is vital. But on the other hand, seeing that we only have knowledge of terrestrial life, extrapolating at all from that knowledge to the supposed "requirements for life" is not reasonable.
...local grocers have been reported to be handing out free samples of cheese. "Coincidentally" these "no-strings-attached" cheese samples have been handed out specifically to people milling about the cheese counter, who are more likely to buy cheese than the average grocery shopper. While not expressly illegal, the psychological effect of getting free cheese is well documented, making this brazen ploy on the part of grocers highly ethically questionable.
Seriously...at what point does someone think it's a good idea to lie to their children like this?... Don't buy into this "magical experience" bullshit
I agree to a point about the lying. We've never played up Santa or told our kids anything that wasn't true about it. It doesn't seem right to lie, and our kids depend on our credibility for so many things. However I think you're wrong to discount the "magic". Our younger two kids, 5 & 7, believe Santa exists, although our older two never did. And the sense of magic it adds to Christmastime for them is really worth something, I think. They ended up believing because of the older kids, or from kids at school. The 7ro was recently overheard to say, "I used to think that Santa didn't exist, but now I know that he really does." I know... mixed up kid. But seriously, it seems like a good thing, as long as it wasn't something that their parents pushed them to believe. As Christians, there's more than enough for children and adults alike to be in awe of at Christmas, so it really plays no significant part for us. But for children in families that aren't Christian or aren't religious, I sort of feel like it helps to spread a similar sense of wonder associated with the holiday for them as well, if it's done right.
Yes, these things have a real existence, in the sense an idea has a real existance in a patterning of electromagnetic fields and chemical connections inside the human mind.
Oh boy, I hate to be the one... but when mommy and daddy told you that the human mind is just a patterning of electromagnetic fields and chemical connections... they were lying. Chemical connections and electromagnetic fields becoming self-aware holds up about as well as the Physics of Santa.
We'll answer any questions he asks, truthfully; at most, we're likely to tell him that Santa Claus is someone who travels around each Christmas leaving presents for children, in order to celebrate the Winter Solstice.
I'm not sure how answering truthfully equates to saying that Santa exists; but more to the point, why on earth would you lie about what Santa is purported to give gifts in celebration of??? You think he's not going to figure out the truth of that at some point? And wonder why you lied to conceal the existence of Christianity?
We're definitely going to leave Jesus out of it (we're atheists), except maybe to explain that that's what certain people believe the winter holiday is about.
Which winter holiday is that? Oh, you mean CHRISTMAS? Am I following you correctly, that you are going to instruct you child that some people believe that Christmas is about Jesus, but it's really about the winter solstice???
We're going to leave out the naughty/nice thing (punishments and rewards for bad/good behavior are, it turns out, not a good idea).
WWWWOW. Very enlightened. Good luck with the age of three. Self control needs to be taught. It's not automatic. Children learn it primarily through consequences. Those who don't learn it, suffer from its lack for their entire lives. The age of three is the primary time for this to take place. If it's learned then, it's usually just a matter of very occasional reinforcement.
If penguins are disappearing from the southern hemisphere, the only rational scientific explanation is that global warming is causing their molecules to vibrate a higher rate, which is somehow making them transparent. NOW DON'T F-- WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY OF PENGUIN DISAPEARANCE, OR WE WILL CAUSE YOUR RUIN!!!
there is a large difference between damaging the U.S., and politically damaging the current administration. If revealing to the public what the administration is doing (note, not what the military or CIA or FBI etc, but the White House administration)
Ok, got it. Damaging the FBI or the CIA or the military is bad, but damaging the Administration that runs them is good. Got it makes perfect sense. (not)
Their usual technique is to assassinate the character of anyone who criticizes them, substituting purely ad hominem arguments -- false ones -- for any reasoned defense of their policies (c.f. Joseph Wilson).
You're delusional. Or you're thinking of the Clinton White House. The Bush administration has never done this with anyone. Least of all Joe Wilson. Or is the "false ad hominem attack" that his wife worked for the CIA?
A system with proper checks and balances would allow the article to be published if either review board approved it, rather than both.
No, a system with proper checks and balances should redact the article on the advisement of either board. On one side you have a question of national security, and on the other side you have an ex-NSA guy who wants his name in the NYT. Hmm, tough choice.
"... I have free-will, and no-one can take that from me, not even god."
If god cannot take away your free will, does that mean he is not omnipotent? I.e. there is a 'rock so big that He cannot lift it'?
The idea of omnipotence is often misunderstood in this way. It doesn't mean that God can do anything that we can think of saying, even if it doesn't make sense. God Is what He Is. He "can't" be anything different. By "can't", I mean it would be meaningless, an impossibility, for Him to be anything different. What He is is the Infinite All. He is Truth Itself. He is Good Itself. He "can't" be anything false. He "can't" be anything evil. Everything false and evil partakes of non-being, whereas God is Being itself. God's perfect love extends His infinite Life to us mortals. This Life is the source of free will.
As a physical phenomenon, free will would show up as an effect without a cause WITHIN THE SYSTEM, i.e. the intersubjectiv, physically observable universe. Or, with other words, as a random event.
Free will couldn't be described as a random event, it is a consciously determined event.
The existence of genuine randomness (e.g. in radioactive decay, but basically in any form of quantum measurement) in the observable universe is pretty much a settled fact in the physical community since the thirties of the previous century.
Yes, we have, since then, had probability distribution equations that acurately predict the disrtibutions of velocities/positions of particles. We also have the assertion that these probability distribution equations are the only things that determine these positions and velocities, and so they are therefore intrinsically random. I've never heard of any actual evidence for this, however, except for the lack of knowledge of any actual cause. But I agree that it is treated as a settled fact.
Don't get me wrong - of course, the existence of randomness does not PROVE the existence of free will - it's only a necessary requirement (in a less strict sense - for all practical purposes, so to say - deterministic chaos or simply intractability would also suffice)....Introspection shows me to have free will
Randomness is not a prerequisite for free will, but is rather incompatible with it. Can you possibly reconcile your own percieved free will with randomness or deterministic chaos??? Do you not have the power to choose rather than having a choice randomly assigned to you?
Obviously, if a subject's decision happens before he/she is consciously aware, it's difficult to accept that the will could be entirely free.
This conlcusion may or may not be obvious, but I don't think it is necessarily true. But regardless, "simple motor tasks" are not really the domain of the question of free will, as it's typically considered -- anyway, not as I consider it.
Nope, the natural world is all inclusive of everything (every-THING). If free will exists, it would be part of humans, which would mean it's part of nature.
What you're describing is the philosophy of naturalism. It ascribes everything, including human nature, to the natural world. It is false.
If our nature was outside of nature, this would be a contradiction.
This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. You are confusing two different definitions of the word "nature." One means the quality of something. The other means the physical dimension of existence.
Free will means the ability to choose, that is all it means on it's own. People seem to think that it implies supernatural, but I think this is a leap as it stands. The ability to choose is not in conflict with determinism. One still has to process the deterministic events to come to a decisions... hmm that sounds a lot like free will.
The ability to choose is not in conflict with determinism. However, the freedom to choose is in conflict with determinism. With a deterministic decision-making process, only one choice is ultimately possible. Free will is empowers us to make choices where we are fully empowered to choose either way. Neither is it a random choice, but a choice we are empowered to make. There is nothing in determinism, or, for that matter, in naturalism, that can account for freedom. Freedom is therefore wholly a spiritual quality.
Why a discussion of free will matters, mostly has to do with people's misinterpretations and linking it to God. It's the logical leap that matters and leads to problems. People get offended when you reduce free will to the possibility of not being reliant on God even though God is not really being attacked.
Free will matters because it is the essence of life. That which is not free has no life. Those who link freedom to God do well to do so.
Also, I think one can believe in determinism and God.
Couldn't a separate chemical reaction be used to alter the chemical reaction? Couldn't this separate chemical reaction be called free will? The supernatural is an explanation for free will not a definition. Having a free will means being able to make a choice, that is all it means. Beyond that it turns into an explanation as to why we have free will.
No, because chemical reactions are necessarily deterministic, (or, theoretically, non-deterministically random). Free will, by definition, cannot be either random or deterministic. That only leaves the supernatural.
Science through CAT scans and the like has determined that mental processes do have a physical component in the brain. As a result, physics and genetics do apply to thought processes, despite your attempt to say that would produce "absurd results". Thoughts can be determined, making them deterministic.
Well, yeah, I think the ancient Egyptians figured out that if you drill a hole in someone's head, it's going to change their thought paterns. I really don't think you need CAT scans to figure out that, as you say, mental processes have a physical component in the brain. However, you then make an unsupported leap in claiming that "thoughts can be determined, making them deterministic," as if the physical component were the only component.
Let me provide an answer to "truly free will" that does not invoke God or "traditional supernaturalism": let's say the universe is a computer with an instruction set (its physical laws). Let's also say that this instruction set contains an instruction, called rand(), to generate a truly random number ("truly random" == the result is not a mathematical function of any inputs, and can not be predicted no matter how much information we have).
If the program that is my human brain invokes rand() at some point and uses the result in my decision process, that is a necessary and sufficient condition for truly free will; my decisions may then be completely free of causality and determinism, as my decision may no longer be a function of its inputs (causative factors), but may in fact simply be a random decision resulting from rand().
"Free will" has never meant simply free from determinism. It means rather that you are free -- you are empowered -- to choose your direction for yourself. Your rand() function is therefore by no means sufficient to implement free will. It's just non-deterministic natural causation instead of deterministic natural causation.
I have a few observations from this:
1) Somehow proving truly free will does not imply supernaturalism, or God, or religion, or anything. 2) Truly free will does mean that we can make completely irrational, random decisions. Somehow, that's not very comforting either. 3) We have yet to conclusively witness any truly random, ie. non-causal, event; at best, we simply don't know the cause, so the existence of some type of rand() is pure fantasy. 4) Who cares? What does rand(), and by extension free will, really buy me? What profound effect on my life will proving the presence or absence of rand() do?
Therefore, 1) is not true. 2) We are free to choose rationality or irrationality. 3) according to current quantum physics, the position of an electron of a hydrogen atom at any given time is a good example of your rand() function. 4) I agree that your rand() function gives you nothing. However, if you have free will, then you are a living being, who can choose who you are becoming. If you have not free will, then you are not truely a living being, but merely a machine.
There is no function in math, and there is no particle in physics, that can cause consciousness. It is likewise futile to look to nature for the cause of free will.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, climate change has been going on for as long as there has been a climate. However, it doesn't advance the discussion, and only shows your own ignorance, that the best arguement you can make is to call those who disagree with you "dumb."
I agree, it's a huge mistake to put paid shills like Al Gore on the same credibility level with actual scientists. But even more importantly, we should remember that science has nothing to do with credibility or consensus, but EVIDENCE. (And as a software developer, I have to insist that computer climate models do not count as evidence -- at least not until such models are tested over the long term against actual results.)
I say if you're laying chicken eggs, you're bloody well a chicken.
Dude, roman numerals?
It has nothing to do with pixel size. The effect you are referring to is from the fact that the positions and spacings of the pixels are physically fixed in the LCD. With a CRT, they are dynamically positioned, and so can be changed (or, OTOH, start drifting around). But how many different resolutions do you need??? Why not just get the LCD that has the resolution you want.
We were in the area at the time... liberating your miserable ungreatful butts. Well at least you're spreading the good will by helping to liberate and Iraq. Oh, wait, you're not. You first argued for appeasing Saddam, and now that the Iraqis are going to hang Saddam, you're arguing for appeasing Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, is not even ASKING for appeasement, like Hitler did. They're just trying to incite large-scale war at any price. In short, I think the jokes are entirely appropriate.
That's a good point, but it only applies to surface liquids. Now, I suppose that if there is literally *no* atmosphere, then over time you will lose whatever gas/liquid resources you start with. But as a matter of organism survival, any solid planet with geological processes is going have plenty of opportunity for subterranean liquid and gas.
This kind of reasoning is ubiquitous, but it always bothers me. We only know of one kind of life (terrestrial life), but even that kind of life doesn't require a gaseous atmosphere. Only certain terrestrial species require an atmosphere. Even those species, such as mammals, reptiles, and birds, only require an atmosphere after birth, and get along just fine without it up until then. So on the one hand, assuming that all life is very similar to terrestrial life, I find nothing to suggest that an atmosphere is vital. But on the other hand, seeing that we only have knowledge of terrestrial life, extrapolating at all from that knowledge to the supposed "requirements for life" is not reasonable.
...local grocers have been reported to be handing out free samples of cheese. "Coincidentally" these "no-strings-attached" cheese samples have been handed out specifically to people milling about the cheese counter, who are more likely to buy cheese than the average grocery shopper. While not expressly illegal, the psychological effect of getting free cheese is well documented, making this brazen ploy on the part of grocers highly ethically questionable.
Remember, this is how Microsoft became Mircosoft in the first place. They gave DOS to IBM for free, but retained the right to make future versions.
I agree to a point about the lying. We've never played up Santa or told our kids anything that wasn't true about it. It doesn't seem right to lie, and our kids depend on our credibility for so many things. However I think you're wrong to discount the "magic". Our younger two kids, 5 & 7, believe Santa exists, although our older two never did. And the sense of magic it adds to Christmastime for them is really worth something, I think. They ended up believing because of the older kids, or from kids at school. The 7ro was recently overheard to say, "I used to think that Santa didn't exist, but now I know that he really does." I know... mixed up kid. But seriously, it seems like a good thing, as long as it wasn't something that their parents pushed them to believe. As Christians, there's more than enough for children and adults alike to be in awe of at Christmas, so it really plays no significant part for us. But for children in families that aren't Christian or aren't religious, I sort of feel like it helps to spread a similar sense of wonder associated with the holiday for them as well, if it's done right.
Oh boy, I hate to be the one... but when mommy and daddy told you that the human mind is just a patterning of electromagnetic fields and chemical connections... they were lying. Chemical connections and electromagnetic fields becoming self-aware holds up about as well as the Physics of Santa.
I'm not sure how answering truthfully equates to saying that Santa exists; but more to the point, why on earth would you lie about what Santa is purported to give gifts in celebration of??? You think he's not going to figure out the truth of that at some point? And wonder why you lied to conceal the existence of Christianity?
Which winter holiday is that? Oh, you mean CHRISTMAS? Am I following you correctly, that you are going to instruct you child that some people believe that Christmas is about Jesus, but it's really about the winter solstice???
WWWWOW. Very enlightened. Good luck with the age of three. Self control needs to be taught. It's not automatic. Children learn it primarily through consequences. Those who don't learn it, suffer from its lack for their entire lives. The age of three is the primary time for this to take place. If it's learned then, it's usually just a matter of very occasional reinforcement.
If penguins are disappearing from the southern hemisphere, the only rational scientific explanation is that global warming is causing their molecules to vibrate a higher rate, which is somehow making them transparent. NOW DON'T F-- WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY OF PENGUIN DISAPEARANCE, OR WE WILL CAUSE YOUR RUIN!!!
What, it's not because of global warming? How is that possible? I thought everything was because of global warming.
Ok, got it. Damaging the FBI or the CIA or the military is bad, but damaging the Administration that runs them is good. Got it makes perfect sense. (not)
You're delusional. Or you're thinking of the Clinton White House. The Bush administration has never done this with anyone. Least of all Joe Wilson. Or is the "false ad hominem attack" that his wife worked for the CIA?
No, a system with proper checks and balances should redact the article on the advisement of either board. On one side you have a question of national security, and on the other side you have an ex-NSA guy who wants his name in the NYT. Hmm, tough choice.
The idea of omnipotence is often misunderstood in this way. It doesn't mean that God can do anything that we can think of saying, even if it doesn't make sense. God Is what He Is. He "can't" be anything different. By "can't", I mean it would be meaningless, an impossibility, for Him to be anything different. What He is is the Infinite All. He is Truth Itself. He is Good Itself. He "can't" be anything false. He "can't" be anything evil. Everything false and evil partakes of non-being, whereas God is Being itself. God's perfect love extends His infinite Life to us mortals. This Life is the source of free will.
Free will couldn't be described as a random event, it is a consciously determined event.
Yes, we have, since then, had probability distribution equations that acurately predict the disrtibutions of velocities/positions of particles. We also have the assertion that these probability distribution equations are the only things that determine these positions and velocities, and so they are therefore intrinsically random. I've never heard of any actual evidence for this, however, except for the lack of knowledge of any actual cause. But I agree that it is treated as a settled fact.
Randomness is not a prerequisite for free will, but is rather incompatible with it. Can you possibly reconcile your own percieved free will with randomness or deterministic chaos??? Do you not have the power to choose rather than having a choice randomly assigned to you?
This conlcusion may or may not be obvious, but I don't think it is necessarily true. But regardless, "simple motor tasks" are not really the domain of the question of free will, as it's typically considered -- anyway, not as I consider it.
What you're describing is the philosophy of naturalism. It ascribes everything, including human nature, to the natural world. It is false.
This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. You are confusing two different definitions of the word "nature." One means the quality of something. The other means the physical dimension of existence.
The ability to choose is not in conflict with determinism. However, the freedom to choose is in conflict with determinism. With a deterministic decision-making process, only one choice is ultimately possible. Free will is empowers us to make choices where we are fully empowered to choose either way. Neither is it a random choice, but a choice we are empowered to make. There is nothing in determinism, or, for that matter, in naturalism, that can account for freedom. Freedom is therefore wholly a spiritual quality.
Free will matters because it is the essence of life. That which is not free has no life. Those who link freedom to God do well to do so.
Truely, God has made us free to do even that!
No, because chemical reactions are necessarily deterministic, (or, theoretically, non-deterministically random). Free will, by definition, cannot be either random or deterministic. That only leaves the supernatural.
Well, yeah, I think the ancient Egyptians figured out that if you drill a hole in someone's head, it's going to change their thought paterns. I really don't think you need CAT scans to figure out that, as you say, mental processes have a physical component in the brain. However, you then make an unsupported leap in claiming that "thoughts can be determined, making them deterministic," as if the physical component were the only component.
"Free will" has never meant simply free from determinism. It means rather that you are free -- you are empowered -- to choose your direction for yourself. Your rand() function is therefore by no means sufficient to implement free will. It's just non-deterministic natural causation instead of deterministic natural causation.
Therefore, 1) is not true. 2) We are free to choose rationality or irrationality. 3) according to current quantum physics, the position of an electron of a hydrogen atom at any given time is a good example of your rand() function. 4) I agree that your rand() function gives you nothing. However, if you have free will, then you are a living being, who can choose who you are becoming. If you have not free will, then you are not truely a living being, but merely a machine.
There is no function in math, and there is no particle in physics, that can cause consciousness. It is likewise futile to look to nature for the cause of free will.