I am saying that it works like this: the more knowns you have, the more accurate your logical conclusions will likely be. Emotions represent an unknown or a known, just like other information necessary to interpersonal interaction. Because of those two things, it follows that someone wishing to employ logic to guide them should see empathy, (or the ability to receiving understanding about the emotion of other people), as a component of knowledge that will always improve their logic in dealing with other people.
You should stop looking at what I posted with binary thinking. The statements I was making do not describes states, they describe scales. That is, greater degrees of "the golden rule" and empathy are present in more complex societies, perhaps simply because the part of our brain that empathizes is also the part that makes complex societies possible.
The more complex the society, the more likely it is to have moral values closer to a few core values, and the reverse is true as well. One is not dependent on the other, they are co-existent states, where the degree of one generally trends toward the degree of the other.
Even then your entire rational is flawed as it fundamentally violates Aristotle's first law of logic. A thing cannot be other than itself.
Emotion by definition is not rational, logic by definition is rational.
Perhaps you misunderstand. I was not saying AT ALL that emotion was logical, I was saying that emotion was information, and information is necessary for logic to work upon.
1. Assume logic exists.
2. Assume logic provides a way to eliminate falsehood.
3. Assume that this elimination is a incremental increase in truth.
4. Logic would then provide for us the most likely conclusion in any situation that we have 100% of the relevant information for.
5. The subjective point of view of other self-aware beings is relevant information to any interaction that you have with them.
6. To understand that half of the information for any exchange, (which is necessary for logic to work better by combining #3 and #4), is their subjective view-point and experience which requires the ability by definition to empathize.
7. Empathy requires emotional understand of another self-aware being.
8. Emotional understanding of a person and emotional destruction of a person are mutually exclusive actions.
9. Thus emotional understanding of a person is necessary for the most objectively truthful, and in many was the most objectively real interaction with any self-aware being.
This is not a proof, but I'm sure someone more learned than I could clean it up.
There are certain morals, such as the moral of doing unto others as you would have done to you, that are inherent to the state of self-aware beings forming societies and structures. The fact that no one has ever tried to prove it to you does not mean they can't. It is in fact much more likely that anyone who can is far too apathetic about the choices being made in society today to try and save it directly, and in that way, many people who could explain it just exemplify it when they can.
I understand that this is not a moral that you disagree with, or that you were disputing directly. You seem to have concluded that it was subjectively true for you, so I am not trying to "correct" you or "teach" you. Instead I am trying to give you a basis for the imperative of the reality surrounding your own consciousness. Trusting that it is true for you, and trusting that it is true, are very different things, and I encourage you to look within yourself in order to find greater subjective and objective truth.
Our own self-awareness is where knowledge leads to self-direction and organization, and it simply makes sense to turn over the organization and direction of our species to that thought process.
1. You are correct. Something to consider.
2. Incorrect. The abstract clearly states that it has already been show effective in actual mice.
3. Correct. Getting it to the cells could be more complicated with certain types of infections.
4. Incorrect. The abstract clearly states that it has proven effective against dsRNA, +ssRNA, -ssRNA, and DNA viruses, because ALL OF THEM produce dsRNA within the infected cell as part of the replication process.
5. Maybe. Sounds like an opinion to me.
6. Sure, why not. You don't have to give this guy any of your money. I'm sure someone will, just to see if he uses it to buy a Ferrari.
7. I must admit that this I somewhat share. The idea is so simple that I feel a bit put-off that it wasn't obvious (if it proves effective and replicable).
The actual abstract very clearly states that the drug induces apoptosis, independent of the host immune system. I know we are probably all used to the pop-sci terms for drugs and the immune system, but we should have all learned about apoptosis in beginners bio.
I think you are mixing two things up: I believe you are talking about a cytokine storm, however that is not related directly to the destruction of cells themselves, but rather the overexcited immune response to a viral infection. In other words, during a cytokine storm, we see the products of this drug applied to health AND infected cells almost indiscriminately.
It's unlikely that this drug would commonly result in things similar to a cytokine storm, since it apparently has absolutely no effect on healthy cells, but it might be possible if you had a sufficiently widespread infection, (which are the kind likely to cause cytokine storms anyway, so perhaps even in that case this would be a good thing).
I think it has more to do with the fact that many humans, "Western" or "Eastern", have trouble partaking in this pleasure *indiscriminately* and at the same time retaining a psychological understanding of the gender source of their satisfaction as being "people" in the sense of self-aware beings that have feelings, emotions, beliefs, understandings, potentials and all those things that make them different to us than our pets.
Or that "free sex" engages different portions of the brains than those that allow us to empathize, and thus many people, at least within themselves, feel the two are exclusionary.
Whether or not this is actually the case hasn't been empirically studied to my knowledge, although the anecdotal evidence would suggest that it's at least partially true.
I wonder if Slashdot ever posted a headline with something like "Removing Lungs Prevents Lung Cancer" commenters would reply with "until we evolve a way to do it without lungs!"
This attacks the molecular things that are necessary for viruses to do the things that make them viruses. A virus could minimize the time that it does it in, or evolve a way to "signal" a mass production, but those are about the only ways it's even physically possible for viruses to deal with this kind of treatment. HIV already has minimized both of those about as far as we've ever seen any virus do it.
The best way a virus could prevent us form using this as an effective cure would be to cycle between periods of massive, almost indescriminate infection, and then all replicating using the dsRNA pathways at the same time, which would require some kind of chemical marker to signal the infected cells, and would require that our normal immune system would be unable to correctly deal with it. HIV does not do this, or at least, not in this way. HIV also selectively infects a body system that is difficult to live without, but rebuilds given the time, and can be compensated for by proper medical care (such as a clean room).
It's unlikely that viruses of any kind will ever improve their ability to deal with this treatment vector. It's also unlikely that all viruses will be completely shut down by this process, but all of them should be impeded fairly dramatically.
Immunosuppressants don't cause apoptosis (cell death) of your immune system phages. They limit the ability of your immune system to be effective, not always but sometimes by getting into the anti-body process and mucking around.
I think you startled people, as many other people see such an intense preoccupation with sexual gratification as the sign of a narrow, uneducated, or "instinctual" mind.
Or, I guess, psychologically many people attach the, er, position you are holding as being statistically indicative of personality types they do not like.
Or you could build yourself a PHP tool that does it, as I did here. (Disclaimer: intended for my personal use, so basically no user-friendliness at all.)
Creating ePub's is surprisingly easy from a programing perspective.
I'm currently writing a book that combines this topic into a much more directed and larger assessment of economics and government in general. The basic conclusion is that the two positive goals that every person on the planet should share are:
1. To improve themselves within their own definition.
2. To assist others in improving themselves in the definition of that person.
These two must be considered equally important or a society will eventually tear down any barriers to self-destruction that have been erected and devolve into inequitable, unjust, and unsustainable positions that will ultimately result in the destruction of that particular society.
I'm then proposing a way we can fundamentally redefine currency through our method of issuance to make it fundamentally profitable to achieve these goals in equal parts.:) I will be publishing for free via e-book, at cost as hard copies, and provide a place people can donate to me if they feel like giving any more than that. (I did not feel it was ethically consistent for me to address this issue then charge others for the information I've compiled.)
There is no "except". Do you understand what an effective tax rate is? It doesn't matter what parts or more or less... in fact that was the ENTIRE point of what I was saying: Americans, (your post being a prime example), are FAR too concerned with making sure that EVERY exchange of money is taxed, but we are accomplishing LESS through our taxation.
In addition, what we spend the money on is COMPLETELY irrelevant to discussing complexity of the tax code, or effective tax rates. I don't care if you us it to hand out cocaine laced ice-cream cones to everyone in a welfare program. It makes no difference to the discussion of how we are collecting the money and in what portions, and America's inability to discuss these things separately has continually harmed our country, our government, our economy, our corporations, and our political interests for over 20 years.
I wish I could make a personal plea to America in general: we are choosing to harm ourselves. How we fix that is something we can all provide different opinions for, but we are doing shockingly destructive things to our society, and we NEED people to at least agree on that. If we can't, we as a society deserve the ultimate march to obsolescence, poverty and chaos that we are currently on. No one gets a free lunch, right? So why are we as a society expecting our entire reality to give us one?
If you really want to talk about what is "heavily entrenched" in our society, it is the pervasive opinion that there are two kinds of people: those with whom we can commiserate on the ills of our society, and those that are responsible for the ills of our society. Our society is so fucking broken that we don't even consider actually identifying problems and fixing them, we're continually stuck in a cycle of blame and group-think.
Perhaps the most damaging part about this situation is that the people who break out of that cycle almost universally become disgusted with the people that constitute the majority, fall into incurable cynicism, and essentially take the position I described earlier: if these people around are intent on fucking things up this badly, maybe they deserve to live in the society they are creating.
Agreed. Americans (me being one of them) have a social understanding that literally nothing you ever do from money is tax free. (IMO, it's actually this stigma interacting with our innate desire for individualism that has led some to the extremism of the Tea Party.)
A curious thing to consider, since the US is routinely cited as having some of the lowest effective taxes in the developed world, but one of the most complex tax codes (which is in part because of our social understanding that all monetary exchanges should be taxed in some way).
Eventually us Americans will figure out that it doesn't matter necessarily if we tax everything, what matters is that we tax in a way that impacts all citizens (presumably fairly) and provides the necessary revenues to government. I just wonder if we'll have a country left by the time we do figure that out.
While I agree to some extent with the sentiment you're expressing, I think, in general, the progression has been much more toward identifying the purpose of an item and creating that item to exactly fill that purpose, including its purpose-stated lifetime.
That's all separate from certain consumer goods that have been designed to fail for the good of continual demand. What I'm more saying is, the progression of technology has been more towards "Well, we want a solid model of this guy's bones so that we can plan our surgery with precision before-hand, so if it only lasts a week, that's fine", and engineers have responded with "Well, if we only need it to last that long and not be too durable, I bet we can build a machine that produces them on demand".
It is worth pointing out that the Chinese public seem largely skeptical of the "lightning strike" explanation. It seems reasonable to me, but I think this is being grasped by some in China as a way to vent their general distrust of government information.
As long as the engineers are allowed to approach it from the "let's fix the problem" angle, it should probably turn out alright (in the future). It really depends on how the government responds to public outcry.
You got rated Insightful, and the AC you replied to got rated Troll.
Fuck Slashdot. People here are no longer interested in thinking. You've all fallen into the easy process of being complete fuck-wits. (Mod this shit down too, see if I give a fuck about what the parrots think about this post.)
I'm actually in the process of writing a book that touches on this theory of social evolution. Essentially that our technological advances have continued without pause, but have at different times in history introduced different chemical and social stimuli that disrupt the processes necessary to fully implement the practical use of that technology, giving us a concrete explanation for why younger people not only latch on to new technology quicker, but have a better understanding of it.
This also implies that there is a critical and inherent moral hazard in not leaving behind a society that is capable of making any reasonable decision for itself to the next generation. Or rather, that were this theory to be true the use of resources to create problems that only arise from a cause after the duration of a normal human life span would be the only action for which there would exist logical and scientific reason to be evil.
Another way of saying it is that the minds most equipped to deal with todays problems are cognitively children. The process of advance requires us, socially, to leave behind enough resources to fix the mistakes that we do not understand because our descendants will and the process of planning for their decisions instead of our own allows them to plans one step further ahead.
That is, a society which is trending toward longer term thinking is directly correlated to a society which is advancing faster and in a more positive direction. The inverse would also be true: a society trending toward short term thinking is socially devolving, regardless of the technologies or ideas presented at the time. In this way, mass advertising the process of corporatism is inherently destructive to humanity because it reinforces the behavior axions that humans are trying to integrate into larger systems of thought.
Anyway, I guess I'll leave the rest for the book...
Slashdot Mirror
I am saying that it works like this: the more knowns you have, the more accurate your logical conclusions will likely be. Emotions represent an unknown or a known, just like other information necessary to interpersonal interaction. Because of those two things, it follows that someone wishing to employ logic to guide them should see empathy, (or the ability to receiving understanding about the emotion of other people), as a component of knowledge that will always improve their logic in dealing with other people.
You should stop looking at what I posted with binary thinking. The statements I was making do not describes states, they describe scales. That is, greater degrees of "the golden rule" and empathy are present in more complex societies, perhaps simply because the part of our brain that empathizes is also the part that makes complex societies possible.
The more complex the society, the more likely it is to have moral values closer to a few core values, and the reverse is true as well. One is not dependent on the other, they are co-existent states, where the degree of one generally trends toward the degree of the other.
Again, I am not saying emotions are logical, I'm saying emotions are information which is necessarily logical to understand.
Perhaps you misunderstand. I was not saying AT ALL that emotion was logical, I was saying that emotion was information, and information is necessary for logic to work upon.
Understanding how they came to their conclusion is not the same thing as understanding their subjective point of view.
Observe:
1. Assume logic exists.
2. Assume logic provides a way to eliminate falsehood.
3. Assume that this elimination is a incremental increase in truth.
4. Logic would then provide for us the most likely conclusion in any situation that we have 100% of the relevant information for.
5. The subjective point of view of other self-aware beings is relevant information to any interaction that you have with them.
6. To understand that half of the information for any exchange, (which is necessary for logic to work better by combining #3 and #4), is their subjective view-point and experience which requires the ability by definition to empathize.
7. Empathy requires emotional understand of another self-aware being.
8. Emotional understanding of a person and emotional destruction of a person are mutually exclusive actions.
9. Thus emotional understanding of a person is necessary for the most objectively truthful, and in many was the most objectively real interaction with any self-aware being.
This is not a proof, but I'm sure someone more learned than I could clean it up.
There are certain morals, such as the moral of doing unto others as you would have done to you, that are inherent to the state of self-aware beings forming societies and structures. The fact that no one has ever tried to prove it to you does not mean they can't. It is in fact much more likely that anyone who can is far too apathetic about the choices being made in society today to try and save it directly, and in that way, many people who could explain it just exemplify it when they can.
I understand that this is not a moral that you disagree with, or that you were disputing directly. You seem to have concluded that it was subjectively true for you, so I am not trying to "correct" you or "teach" you. Instead I am trying to give you a basis for the imperative of the reality surrounding your own consciousness. Trusting that it is true for you, and trusting that it is true, are very different things, and I encourage you to look within yourself in order to find greater subjective and objective truth.
Our own self-awareness is where knowledge leads to self-direction and organization, and it simply makes sense to turn over the organization and direction of our species to that thought process.
1. You are correct. Something to consider.
2. Incorrect. The abstract clearly states that it has already been show effective in actual mice.
3. Correct. Getting it to the cells could be more complicated with certain types of infections.
4. Incorrect. The abstract clearly states that it has proven effective against dsRNA, +ssRNA, -ssRNA, and DNA viruses, because ALL OF THEM produce dsRNA within the infected cell as part of the replication process.
5. Maybe. Sounds like an opinion to me.
6. Sure, why not. You don't have to give this guy any of your money. I'm sure someone will, just to see if he uses it to buy a Ferrari.
7. I must admit that this I somewhat share. The idea is so simple that I feel a bit put-off that it wasn't obvious (if it proves effective and replicable).
The actual abstract very clearly states that the drug induces apoptosis, independent of the host immune system. I know we are probably all used to the pop-sci terms for drugs and the immune system, but we should have all learned about apoptosis in beginners bio.
I think you are mixing two things up: I believe you are talking about a cytokine storm, however that is not related directly to the destruction of cells themselves, but rather the overexcited immune response to a viral infection. In other words, during a cytokine storm, we see the products of this drug applied to health AND infected cells almost indiscriminately.
It's unlikely that this drug would commonly result in things similar to a cytokine storm, since it apparently has absolutely no effect on healthy cells, but it might be possible if you had a sufficiently widespread infection, (which are the kind likely to cause cytokine storms anyway, so perhaps even in that case this would be a good thing).
You should really RTFA before you comment on the consequences.
I think it has more to do with the fact that many humans, "Western" or "Eastern", have trouble partaking in this pleasure *indiscriminately* and at the same time retaining a psychological understanding of the gender source of their satisfaction as being "people" in the sense of self-aware beings that have feelings, emotions, beliefs, understandings, potentials and all those things that make them different to us than our pets.
Or that "free sex" engages different portions of the brains than those that allow us to empathize, and thus many people, at least within themselves, feel the two are exclusionary.
Whether or not this is actually the case hasn't been empirically studied to my knowledge, although the anecdotal evidence would suggest that it's at least partially true.
I wonder if Slashdot ever posted a headline with something like "Removing Lungs Prevents Lung Cancer" commenters would reply with "until we evolve a way to do it without lungs!"
This attacks the molecular things that are necessary for viruses to do the things that make them viruses. A virus could minimize the time that it does it in, or evolve a way to "signal" a mass production, but those are about the only ways it's even physically possible for viruses to deal with this kind of treatment. HIV already has minimized both of those about as far as we've ever seen any virus do it.
The best way a virus could prevent us form using this as an effective cure would be to cycle between periods of massive, almost indescriminate infection, and then all replicating using the dsRNA pathways at the same time, which would require some kind of chemical marker to signal the infected cells, and would require that our normal immune system would be unable to correctly deal with it. HIV does not do this, or at least, not in this way. HIV also selectively infects a body system that is difficult to live without, but rebuilds given the time, and can be compensated for by proper medical care (such as a clean room).
It's unlikely that viruses of any kind will ever improve their ability to deal with this treatment vector. It's also unlikely that all viruses will be completely shut down by this process, but all of them should be impeded fairly dramatically.
Immunosuppressants don't cause apoptosis (cell death) of your immune system phages. They limit the ability of your immune system to be effective, not always but sometimes by getting into the anti-body process and mucking around.
I think you startled people, as many other people see such an intense preoccupation with sexual gratification as the sign of a narrow, uneducated, or "instinctual" mind. Or, I guess, psychologically many people attach the, er, position you are holding as being statistically indicative of personality types they do not like.
Or you could build yourself a PHP tool that does it, as I did here. (Disclaimer: intended for my personal use, so basically no user-friendliness at all.)
Creating ePub's is surprisingly easy from a programing perspective.
I'm currently writing a book that combines this topic into a much more directed and larger assessment of economics and government in general. The basic conclusion is that the two positive goals that every person on the planet should share are:
:) I will be publishing for free via e-book, at cost as hard copies, and provide a place people can donate to me if they feel like giving any more than that. (I did not feel it was ethically consistent for me to address this issue then charge others for the information I've compiled.)
1. To improve themselves within their own definition.
2. To assist others in improving themselves in the definition of that person.
These two must be considered equally important or a society will eventually tear down any barriers to self-destruction that have been erected and devolve into inequitable, unjust, and unsustainable positions that will ultimately result in the destruction of that particular society.
I'm then proposing a way we can fundamentally redefine currency through our method of issuance to make it fundamentally profitable to achieve these goals in equal parts.
They either were not that smart, or not that corrupt. Take your pick.
There is no "except". Do you understand what an effective tax rate is? It doesn't matter what parts or more or less... in fact that was the ENTIRE point of what I was saying: Americans, (your post being a prime example), are FAR too concerned with making sure that EVERY exchange of money is taxed, but we are accomplishing LESS through our taxation.
In addition, what we spend the money on is COMPLETELY irrelevant to discussing complexity of the tax code, or effective tax rates. I don't care if you us it to hand out cocaine laced ice-cream cones to everyone in a welfare program. It makes no difference to the discussion of how we are collecting the money and in what portions, and America's inability to discuss these things separately has continually harmed our country, our government, our economy, our corporations, and our political interests for over 20 years.
I wish I could make a personal plea to America in general: we are choosing to harm ourselves. How we fix that is something we can all provide different opinions for, but we are doing shockingly destructive things to our society, and we NEED people to at least agree on that. If we can't, we as a society deserve the ultimate march to obsolescence, poverty and chaos that we are currently on. No one gets a free lunch, right? So why are we as a society expecting our entire reality to give us one?
If you really want to talk about what is "heavily entrenched" in our society, it is the pervasive opinion that there are two kinds of people: those with whom we can commiserate on the ills of our society, and those that are responsible for the ills of our society. Our society is so fucking broken that we don't even consider actually identifying problems and fixing them, we're continually stuck in a cycle of blame and group-think.
Perhaps the most damaging part about this situation is that the people who break out of that cycle almost universally become disgusted with the people that constitute the majority, fall into incurable cynicism, and essentially take the position I described earlier: if these people around are intent on fucking things up this badly, maybe they deserve to live in the society they are creating.
Agreed. Americans (me being one of them) have a social understanding that literally nothing you ever do from money is tax free. (IMO, it's actually this stigma interacting with our innate desire for individualism that has led some to the extremism of the Tea Party.)
A curious thing to consider, since the US is routinely cited as having some of the lowest effective taxes in the developed world, but one of the most complex tax codes (which is in part because of our social understanding that all monetary exchanges should be taxed in some way).
Eventually us Americans will figure out that it doesn't matter necessarily if we tax everything, what matters is that we tax in a way that impacts all citizens (presumably fairly) and provides the necessary revenues to government. I just wonder if we'll have a country left by the time we do figure that out.
While I agree to some extent with the sentiment you're expressing, I think, in general, the progression has been much more toward identifying the purpose of an item and creating that item to exactly fill that purpose, including its purpose-stated lifetime.
That's all separate from certain consumer goods that have been designed to fail for the good of continual demand. What I'm more saying is, the progression of technology has been more towards "Well, we want a solid model of this guy's bones so that we can plan our surgery with precision before-hand, so if it only lasts a week, that's fine", and engineers have responded with "Well, if we only need it to last that long and not be too durable, I bet we can build a machine that produces them on demand".
It is worth pointing out that the Chinese public seem largely skeptical of the "lightning strike" explanation. It seems reasonable to me, but I think this is being grasped by some in China as a way to vent their general distrust of government information.
As long as the engineers are allowed to approach it from the "let's fix the problem" angle, it should probably turn out alright (in the future). It really depends on how the government responds to public outcry.
i believe the correct concatenation was "rabid badger"
You got rated Insightful, and the AC you replied to got rated Troll.
Fuck Slashdot. People here are no longer interested in thinking. You've all fallen into the easy process of being complete fuck-wits. (Mod this shit down too, see if I give a fuck about what the parrots think about this post.)
All 40 year olds also think the world is messed up. They've just been beaten into submission by the power structures of our society.
I'm actually in the process of writing a book that touches on this theory of social evolution. Essentially that our technological advances have continued without pause, but have at different times in history introduced different chemical and social stimuli that disrupt the processes necessary to fully implement the practical use of that technology, giving us a concrete explanation for why younger people not only latch on to new technology quicker, but have a better understanding of it.
This also implies that there is a critical and inherent moral hazard in not leaving behind a society that is capable of making any reasonable decision for itself to the next generation. Or rather, that were this theory to be true the use of resources to create problems that only arise from a cause after the duration of a normal human life span would be the only action for which there would exist logical and scientific reason to be evil.
Another way of saying it is that the minds most equipped to deal with todays problems are cognitively children. The process of advance requires us, socially, to leave behind enough resources to fix the mistakes that we do not understand because our descendants will and the process of planning for their decisions instead of our own allows them to plans one step further ahead.
That is, a society which is trending toward longer term thinking is directly correlated to a society which is advancing faster and in a more positive direction. The inverse would also be true: a society trending toward short term thinking is socially devolving, regardless of the technologies or ideas presented at the time. In this way, mass advertising the process of corporatism is inherently destructive to humanity because it reinforces the behavior axions that humans are trying to integrate into larger systems of thought.
Anyway, I guess I'll leave the rest for the book...