Since everything that is emotional is also physical, how do you decide if a person has an active (insert brain component) because of their decisions or makes their decisions because of an active brain component. To whip out the old saw, correlation doesn't prove causation. Can we use this technique to predict a person's political affiliation from childhood? Could it be used to alter a person's political affiliation?
I think that given the methodology of science, most detectable corrolations between the spiritual and the physical will be described as the physical causing the spiritual. Makes for a self fufilling prophecy that we are who we are because of what we are. It's already been decided that free will is an illusion, and scientists are now going about gathering the data to prove it. And that 'proof' will have an effect on how we think in the same way that notions of 'free will' did.
speaking of which, does anyone have any clue where I can get some of the swordfighting on a video clip? I've tried p2p and so far it's dry. Same with the web. (I'm in America, so NBC might be playing with me.)
While I understand what you're saying, there are a few key differences;
1. The government does have a lot of cops out on the road giving a lot of tickets, vehicle citations, etc. They've invested in road signs and all kinds of ads against drunk driving, speeding, liscensing, etc. I'm not sure that self-driving cars would really reduce accidents, especially given our current technology and the public resistance to public transit is too great. They haven't created airplanes that 'self-fly' yet either.
2. Deaths from auto accidents don't have political relevance. There's a distinct difference between people involved in accidents and people making political threats. It's not just about relative body count. The government has a much greater responsibility to protect us from criminals and foreign threats than it does from accidents.
3. If you had 2000 auto accidents in NYC, in one day, you'd probably get a much bigger reaction, psychologically than if they were spread out across the US. Events, particularly events beyond people's control, make a bigger impact than things people think they might be able to control. It's not just that people died on 9-11 but that there was no way for the individuals involved to prevent their deaths. And that's a strong psychological need, to be in control. So there's a greater desire for government action.
Individuals who are worried about dying from smoking or driving accidents can take actions that they believe will defend themselves.
There's an experiment. Compare someone's ability to recognize people in a mugshot with their vocabulary in different areas and their ability to remember pictures. See what's the best determinant of accuracy.
Words are useful for compression of memory. A compressed video is smaller than uncompressed, true, but you can keep more of them before you have to throw them away.
I just came back from China. I speak very little Chinese. Expressing disapproval is a universal language that any human understands. Of course, the ability to barter, warn, threaten, and persuade require a little more communication to do properly. How would you behave if you couldn't communicate these things, short of showing anger or a willingness to fight?
Sure, without a numerical language you can remember things one at a time. You can't count, calculate, refer to or remember large numbers or finite quantities of things, though.
Here's my view; Language is used to
1. model situations and caluculate possible results
2. To remember things that happened
3. To compare memorized benchmarks (i.e. a job that pays $20,000/year is not very good, but a job that pays $60/hour is quite good)
You can remember that "one shade of lavender is lighter than the other" but without some kind of descriptive language, you're relying on your pictoral memory to make the comparison. The problem is that without the right language, and especially without the right numerical system it's difficult to model, calculate or even remember large numbers of things except as individual visual events and one-to-one correspondences.
Think of your pictoral memory as a 'less compressed' version of your language memory.
When it comes to calculation and thinking, look at it this way. How do you do math? You've memorized one-to-one correspondences between individual digits. 9-3=6 5+4=9 etc. You have a system of rules which allow for encoding and calculation, and these rules are composed of one-to-one correspondences sometimes applied recursivly. Thus, our brain uses rules and one-to-one correspondences to calculate large numbers.
If you tried to learn to 'think' in base 6, you'd have to re-memorize your calculations. Then, once you had your calculated number in base 6 you'd have to change it back into base 10 since all your references are in base ten. In other words, you might know that your new job pays 600,000 per year in base 6, but you'd have to change that to base ten in order to see if it falls within a 'good' salary range.
How about this. Language is used to model situations, to caluculate possible results, and to remember things that happened.
You can remember that the snow was "fluffy and wet" for example, or that it was 'prettily shaped.' or that "one shade of lavender is lighter than the other" (but only if they're oth side by side. The problem is that without the right numerical system it's difficult to model, calculate or remember large numbers of things except as individual events.
Of course, humans can think without using language. They can remember pictures. But it's harder to encode information this way, so your memories won't be as accurate, presumably.
I suppose it depends on whether a person thinks in words or whether they could use somthing else to model their thoughts. My mother can actually visualize things and hold the picture in her mind (Though it's not photographic). I tend to be more auditory and tend to hear things spoken back.
I suppose language is a means of modeling and thus compressing information for the purpose of memory.
I firmly believe that a person who has taken chemistry would be better at remembering the structure of a molecule because he has the words to describe it and thus encode it for memory.
The thing which differentiates humans from animals is that we're capable of recursion, and can use our knowledge of one-two-three-many and the one to one correspondence between added and subtracted numbers (9 minus three = 6) to effectivly model, calculate, and remember more complex situations.
Not really. Somehow the state of Florida gave an extra 5000 votes to the millitary, and then threatened to bring in the millitary if those votes weren't counted.
Well, part of that would be covered under 'past number of medals gained' as well as the wealth of the particular nation, considering that desire is not enough. A champion has to be able to avoid detection, which means good technology.
These things are far easier to quantify than 'desire.'
Slashdot Mirror
Since everything that is emotional is also physical, how do you decide if a person has an active (insert brain component) because of their decisions or makes their decisions because of an active brain component. To whip out the old saw, correlation doesn't prove causation. Can we use this technique to predict a person's political affiliation from childhood? Could it be used to alter a person's political affiliation?
I think that given the methodology of science, most detectable corrolations between the spiritual and the physical will be described as the physical causing the spiritual. Makes for a self fufilling prophecy that we are who we are because of what we are. It's already been decided that free will is an illusion, and scientists are now going about gathering the data to prove it. And that 'proof' will have an effect on how we think in the same way that notions of 'free will' did.
speaking of which, does anyone have any clue where I can get some of the swordfighting on a video clip? I've tried p2p and so far it's dry.
Same with the web. (I'm in America, so NBC might be playing with me.)
They'll be experimenting with over-age drinking...
You, Sir, are worse than Morgoth.
Yer on to me. ;)
As a result from stress and aggrevation I've apparently made a couple of origami sheep while in school.
How many sheep did you make?
Watch now on "Pay-per-view"
The Lucky Cow comic strip had a joke along these lines.
While I understand what you're saying, there are a few key differences;
1. The government does have a lot of cops out on the road giving a lot of tickets, vehicle citations, etc. They've invested in road signs and all kinds of ads against drunk driving, speeding, liscensing, etc. I'm not sure that self-driving cars would really reduce accidents, especially given our current technology and the public resistance to public transit is too great. They haven't created airplanes that 'self-fly' yet either.
2. Deaths from auto accidents don't have political relevance. There's a distinct difference between people involved in accidents and people making political threats. It's not just about relative body count. The government has a much greater responsibility to protect us from criminals and foreign threats than it does from accidents.
3. If you had 2000 auto accidents in NYC, in one day, you'd probably get a much bigger reaction, psychologically than if they were spread out across the US. Events, particularly events beyond people's control, make a bigger impact than things people think they might be able to control. It's not just that people died on 9-11 but that there was no way for the individuals involved to prevent their deaths. And that's a strong psychological need, to be in control. So there's a greater desire for government action.
Individuals who are worried about dying from smoking or driving accidents can take actions that they believe will defend themselves.
There's an experiment. Compare someone's ability to recognize people in a mugshot with their vocabulary in different areas and their ability to remember pictures. See what's the best determinant of accuracy.
Words are useful for compression of memory. A compressed video is smaller than uncompressed, true, but you can keep more of them before you have to throw them away.
I just came back from China. I speak very little Chinese. Expressing disapproval is a universal language that any human understands. Of course, the ability to barter, warn, threaten, and persuade require a little more communication to do properly. How would you behave if you couldn't communicate these things, short of showing anger or a willingness to fight?
Sure, without a numerical language you can remember things one at a time. You can't count, calculate, refer to or remember large numbers or finite quantities of things, though.
Here's my view; Language is used to
1. model situations and caluculate possible results
2. To remember things that happened
3. To compare memorized benchmarks (i.e. a job that pays $20,000/year is not very good, but a job that pays $60/hour is quite good)
You can remember that "one shade of lavender is lighter than the other"
but without some kind of descriptive language, you're relying on your pictoral memory to make the comparison. The problem is that without the right language, and especially without the right numerical system it's difficult to model, calculate or even remember large numbers of things except as individual visual events and one-to-one correspondences.
Think of your pictoral memory as a 'less compressed' version of your language memory.
When it comes to calculation and thinking, look at it this way. How do you do math?
You've memorized one-to-one correspondences between individual digits. 9-3=6 5+4=9 etc.
You have a system of rules which allow for encoding and calculation, and these rules are composed of one-to-one correspondences sometimes applied recursivly. Thus, our brain uses rules and one-to-one correspondences to calculate large numbers.
If you tried to learn to 'think' in base 6, you'd have to re-memorize your calculations. Then, once you had your calculated number in base 6 you'd have to change it back into base 10 since all your references are in base ten. In other words, you might know that your new job pays 600,000 per year in base 6, but you'd have to change that to base ten in order to see if it falls within a 'good' salary range.
This is all just my opinion, of course.
How about this. Language is used to model situations, to caluculate possible results, and to remember things that happened.
You can remember that the snow was "fluffy and wet" for example, or that it was 'prettily shaped.' or that "one shade of lavender is lighter than the other" (but only if they're oth side by side. The problem is that without the right numerical system it's difficult to model, calculate or remember large numbers of things except as individual events.
Of course, humans can think without using language. They can remember pictures. But it's harder to encode information this way, so your memories won't be as accurate, presumably.
Just my opinion, of course.
I suppose it depends on whether a person thinks in words or whether they could use somthing else to model their thoughts. My mother can actually visualize things and hold the picture in her mind (Though it's not photographic). I tend to be more auditory and tend to hear things spoken back.
I suppose language is a means of modeling and thus compressing information for the purpose of memory.
I firmly believe that a person who has taken chemistry would be better at remembering the structure of a molecule because he has the words to describe it and thus encode it for memory.
The thing which differentiates humans from animals is that we're capable of recursion, and can use our knowledge of one-two-three-many and the one to one correspondence between added and subtracted numbers (9 minus three = 6) to effectivly model, calculate, and remember more complex situations.
Well, a lot of Americans don't differentiate between west indian and african. They're both "black."
So imagine that this happened and you couldn't count. Would you know how many people were in there?
Not really. Somehow the state of Florida gave an extra 5000 votes to the millitary, and then threatened to bring in the millitary if those votes weren't counted.
First they came for the Democratic senators, and I didn't speak out because I was not a Democratic senator...
I'm surprised folks weren't more suspicious about Wellstone's convenient death at the start of all of this.
Lets see. Legitamate spam is illegitamate. Right?
Does this mean that the gov.'s tempest project would be able to spy on what we're SEEING?
Or is the power involved far too weak for that.
Or
b. Send out a massive phishing e-mail and scold anyone who falls for it.
Well, part of that would be covered under 'past number of medals gained' as well as the wealth of the particular nation, considering that desire is not enough. A champion has to be able to avoid detection, which means good technology.
These things are far easier to quantify than 'desire.'
It's nice. But it sure ain't perl poetry.
We have a foreign policy? I never knew...
If movies have taught me anything, its that one quick trip to the Wizard of Oz can fix this! .. or that we had the answer all along?