I never said my ideas were completely new or alien, or had no basis in history. Ok, I made that up;) Or rather, it seemed to me that you did, because you emphasized your philosophical training so much, when in fact most bright teens go through a solipsistic phase and beleive they have found something astounding.
What I'm saying is that science seems to be proving that the solipsis was of thinking is simply the most reasonable. I don't think you have demonstrated this, at all.
I don't mean to discredit any other way or thinking, but no other way of thinking seems to be as reasonable. The other ways of thinking seem to rely on faith, we are supposed to believe that "stuff" can exist outside of our minds, which to me doesn't seem any more reasonable than believing in a God who lives in the sky who we can't see, or aliens in space, or angels, or the devil. I can't follow you at all. Believing that stuff can exist outside of our minds seems to me to not at all more crazy than thinking that all that exists is our mind. Both are basically axioms.
[...] The main different between what I'm saying and Solipsism is that Solipsism says that the individual mind "mine" is the only mind I know to exist, while I'm saying "our" as in the universal mind is the only thing I know to exist. Taoism and Buddhism have said the same for thousands of years.
Btw what are some of those philosophical problems with Solipsism? Why is it at all plausible that I am so fucking important that I alone exist? How can this mind of mine even exist if nothing exists but my mind?
And why exactly is it impossible to psychologically believe? Why should you believe anything exists outside of reality? I thought the Russel quote makes this very clear. If everything exists only within my mind, I can do whatever the fuck I please. I can rape a million babies and bathe in their blood, I can obliterate the entire world. Nothing at all has any meaning or consequences whatsoever. Who actually lives like that?
I base my core assumption on pure reason. I don't think so.
Can you agree that your thoughts are the most real thing in this universe? Um, no I can't. In fact I believe that the random thoughts of my ego are one of the more unreal things in the universe, possibly just noise from some quantum stuff going on. I think Zen Buddhism (among other, similar mind techniques) is on the right track by trying to get rid of this nonsense.
If you agree that nothing can be more real than your thoughts, then you can see that self awareness is the universe. Well, as per above, I can't.
If a mammal can look at itself in a mirror and recognize itself, its self aware. I suggest you do some actual science. You will find that scarcely any mammal is able to do this. Maybe some apes, that's it.
The more self aware it is, the closer to God it is. A mammal is closer to God than a fish, but a chimp or a human is even closer to God than the fish or most mammals. Considering that human children can perform the required feat only at age 2 or so (IIRC), I your statement that "a human is even closer to god" is clearly false, unless you don't think babies are human.
Some aliens in the universe may be closer to God than us. The simple fact is, the closer to God you are, the more control you have over nature, the more control you have over that which is less aware of itself. That's all pure conjecture.
So because that fish is unaware of itself, and it's environment, you can go fishing and or put them in a fish tank or whatever and the fish just isn't capable of being aware of what you are doing. To that fish, you are God. Dude, to that fish I am basically nothing at all. A shadow maybe.
The same would happen to us if we came into contact with aliens which are so much more self aware than we are that they could wipe us out easily. How, exactly, do you know that aliens would have this ability?
But if you want me to make it simple, nothing exists outside of our minds. You only think that stuff exists but you have no way to actually prove anything exists prior to perception. Basically I don't believe the universe exists independent of the observer. And if you somehow do believe the universe can exist independent on the observer then the burden is on you to prove something can exist without being observed by anything in the universe. You sound as if you thought that Solipsism was something new. In fact this line of thinking has existed since a few hundred years BC, along with a number of philosophical problems that come with it, and which it never could solve.
Quoting Wikipedia, Bertrand Russell wrote:
"As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me."
-- B. Russel, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits.
I'm certainly not an expert, but the Wikipedia page on Papal Infallibility explains that there are actually very few papal statements in history that qualify for being issued "ex cathedra". It would be interesting to know whether these are contradictory.
You don't understand the catholic mindset:) The whole point is to believe in it against all odds and, specifically, despite the fact that nothing happens.
I find it weird, too.
OTOH, I can imagine that the mere act of such a submission to a state of mind can have certain desirable effects (and, of course, also undesirable ones). I don't think it's an accident that many other religions propagate a certain way of "giving up".
In fact, it has been His deafening silence after the tsunami that drowned thousands of innocent children (and now the earthquake in China), that finalized both my disbelief in a supreme being and my hatred for the Catholic church. Not religious myself, but if you'd have a clue about catholicism you'd know that they argue that god's children are free beings, living to choose and work out their destiny. An intervening god would make no sense in their religion, and that's actually not one of its worst traits.
Ultimately it is really about politics between different sub-groups so "heresy" doesn't really apply. I thought that in most cases, "heresy" is ultimately about politics between different sub-groups.
My point was not that they eat lots of fish (I like fish), but that they import basically _all of their raw materials and food. This was in reply to a guy who fantasized that we can all live like the Japanese. We can't.
Japan must import about 50% of its requirements of grain and fodder crops other than rice, and it relies on imports for most of its supply of meat. In fishing, Japan is ranked second in the world behind China in tonnage of fish caught. Japan maintains one of the world's largest fishing fleets and accounts for nearly 15% of the global catch. Japan relies on foreign countries for almost all oil and food. -- Wikipedia
He didn't say that regular users should need to understand their computers, but that there should be the option to understand them. To apply your analogy, what would car users think if rebuilding the whole car was the only way to fix issues even for a mechanic?
The difference is that in the closed source world something as basic as a language pack would come with the same QA that the program... To be fair, most closed source software not not come with a Vietnamese language pack at all.
What kind of messed up place do you live where it's recommended you check the trunk for dead bodies? And not only deposited, but removed dead bodies O_O
if IE is safer in that regard, then there you go. Yeah, sure. We have constant trojan infections at our company, probably stemming from users visiting myspace with IE6.
Unbibium is the temporary name, of course. Eventually it will receive another name. It will officially be called 9.04. But Unbibium is a really dumb choice for a code name, even. How is it going to be popular with a stupid name like this!
If nobody can tell what art is anymore then is everything art? Congratulations, you have just restated the question that artists like Marcel Duchamp discovered 90 years ago:)
Well, as it turned out he is running a server. There are really no excuses, that's always going to take some involvement. There is no GUI by default on the server, and therefore your method won't work. It will also not upgrade from the DVD, as he asked for.
I dunno about the terminal, I find it faster for most tasks. And there really are not many needs left, in Ubuntu, where you need the terminal. Not for upgrading, that's for sure.
It's not after the cut-off date for security fixes, it's after the cut-off date MS has set for sales of XP. Just a few days ago SP3 was released, and security updates will be created for a long time still.
You accused IBM to apply pressure and the FSF succumbing to it without a shred of evidence. While I can understand where you stand on the B2B vs B2C issue, you completely ignore that there are some valid reasons to draw the line were it was drawn, even though you disagree.
I don't even say that what you said can't be true, it's a reasonable though experiment. But you did spin the facts in you first post, and now your accusations really are very severe considering that you don't back them up at all.
Slashdot Mirror
How so? Assuming I believed everything is in my mind, the someone who isn't me is also only in my mind.
Basically I don't believe the universe exists independent of the observer. And if you somehow do believe the universe can exist independent on the observer then the burden is on you to prove something can exist without being observed by anything in the universe. You sound as if you thought that Solipsism was something new. In fact this line of thinking has existed since a few hundred years BC, along with a number of philosophical problems that come with it, and which it never could solve.
Quoting Wikipedia, Bertrand Russell wrote: -- B. Russel, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits.
I'm certainly not an expert, but the Wikipedia page on Papal Infallibility explains that there are actually very few papal statements in history that qualify for being issued "ex cathedra". It would be interesting to know whether these are contradictory.
You don't understand the catholic mindset :)
The whole point is to believe in it against all odds and, specifically, despite the fact that nothing happens.
I find it weird, too.
OTOH, I can imagine that the mere act of such a submission to a state of mind can have certain desirable effects (and, of course, also undesirable ones). I don't think it's an accident that many other religions propagate a certain way of "giving up".
My point was not that they eat lots of fish (I like fish), but that they import basically _all of their raw materials and food. This was in reply to a guy who fantasized that we can all live like the Japanese. We can't.
Yes, IF we want to live like that.
He didn't say that regular users should need to understand their computers, but that there should be the option to understand them. To apply your analogy, what would car users think if rebuilding the whole car was the only way to fix issues even for a mechanic?
s/not not/would not
That does not excuse the FF problem, though.
Well, as it turned out he is running a server. There are really no excuses, that's always going to take some involvement. There is no GUI by default on the server, and therefore your method won't work. It will also not upgrade from the DVD, as he asked for.
I dunno about the terminal, I find it faster for most tasks. And there really are not many needs left, in Ubuntu, where you need the terminal. Not for upgrading, that's for sure.
It's not after the cut-off date for security fixes, it's after the cut-off date MS has set for sales of XP. Just a few days ago SP3 was released, and security updates will be created for a long time still.
You accused IBM to apply pressure and the FSF succumbing to it without a shred of evidence. While I can understand where you stand on the B2B vs B2C issue, you completely ignore that there are some valid reasons to draw the line were it was drawn, even though you disagree.
I didn't say there's a guarantee.
I don't even say that what you said can't be true, it's a reasonable though experiment. But you did spin the facts in you first post, and now your accusations really are very severe considering that you don't back them up at all.