This very tiny blue dot in space is our only place we can survive.. Instead of fighting to own part of it or it's ressources, we must all aim to preserve it for everything alive on it. It's our duty, has it's the only place we all have to survive. No, it's not. We can survive just fine elsewhere. We just need less protection here. What exactly do you mean by this? It's in English. Where did I lose you? Where you said elsewhere and mentioned something about less protection. Precision in articulation is golden. Half assed hand waving is decidedly not. |
|
|
|
This very tiny blue dot in space is our only place we can survive.. Instead of fighting to own part of it or it's ressources, we must all aim to preserve it for everything alive on it. It's our duty, has it's the only place we all have to survive. No, it's not. We can survive just fine elsewhere. We just need less protection here. What exactly do you mean by this? |
|
|
|
But I've given you all the information you need to form your own opinions. Why would you want information us? Are you just that lazy that you don't want to think for yourself?
I'm not trying to form opinions about the information you've given me. |
|
|
|
I am not seeking education. I'm seeking the ways in which individuals here in this forum express their beliefs based upon what they have absorbed. The books would not serve that purpose unless they are written by actual members here. |
|
|
|
And again, I have given you a link to where you can find those beliefs. Are you so lazy as to wish me to educate you about those beliefs?
I will state this very clearly: I want to know the exact phrasing and wording that you use to explore the topic of land improvement. I also want to know the exact phrasing that others who have similar beliefs as you use when exploring the topic of land improvement. I do not expect that each individual uses the same phrases. Let's start with you. |
|
|
|
You sound like someone who is bitter over another matter where you flaunted your opinions about a domain of knowledge you were not fluent in. Regarding this thread, I am actually seeking opinions from the likes of you. Please note the difference: I am not seeking an education from you. I am seeking the beliefs of you and your kind. Big difference. |
|
|
|
|
The title of the thread is the mantra of a lot of AnCaps or Libertarians here. Such a statement always comes up in those endless threads. Rather than resurrect one of those threads, I'm looking for some thoughts on that philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
I see a lot of posts about "improving the land", such as:
- If I own the land, I have the right to improve the land.
- by improving the land, I have staked my ownership of the land.
... Or similar statements. If these are reasonable statements, or statements you might make, or, conversely, if you disagree with them, please chime in. Or if you would like to offer up variants, please do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Please explain. It's such an obvious thing.
|
|
|
|
He used mathematical reasoning to show that consciousness is non-algorithmic and therefore cannot be programmed into any computer, regardless of technology - it's basically a paradox.
I think the right question to ask here is the one about the instinct of self-preservation. Philosophical materialists (like Dawkins et al) would argue that all other aspects of consciousness are deducible from that. The complexity of decision making in survival strategies would sooner or later require some fuzzy logic and may very well spark the very thing that we call consciousness. We also wouldn't be zombies as kindness and positive social interaction would prove to be beneficial survival strategies. So, would a system complex enough develop such an "instinct" for self-preservation out of itself? Did such systems merely emerge on this planet because of the usual evolutionary processes? Most everything you're saying here relates to the "Easy Problem". Nor is there any reason that philosophical zombies would be exempt from the need for effective fuzzy logic and the exhibition of kindness. Two things: - Consider the Hard Problem. - Consider the concept of proto-consciousness. Proto-consciousness goes a long way towards making the Hard Problem seem tractable. Everything else just doesn't even come close. |
|
|
|
|
Alastair Reynolds: science fiction space opera
- House of Suns
- The Prefect
Neal Stephenson: unclassifiable techno thriller
- Reamde
- Cryptonomicon
Dan Simmons: horror, historical fiction, thrillers, science fiction
- The Terror
- Summer of Night
- Carrion Comfort
- Hyperion
- The Fall of Hyperion
Jack Vance: unclassifiable space opera
- The Star King (Demon Princes, Vol. 1, Book 1)
- The Killing Machine (Demon Princes, Vol. 1, Book 2)
- The Palace of Love (Demon Princes, Vol. 1, Book 3)
- The Face (Demon Princes, Vol. 2, Book 4)
- The Book of Dreams (Demon Princes, Vol 2, Book 5)
- Planet of Adventure (Omnibus Edition)
Jeff Long: thrillers with a haunted feeling
- The Wall
- The Reckoning
- The Descent
- Year Zero
Bernard Cornwell: superb historical fiction
- The Archer's Tale (The Grail Quest, Book 1)
- Vagabond (The Grail Quest, Book 2)
- Heretic (The Grail Quest, Book 3)
- Agincourt
- Gallows Thief
Caleb Carr: historical thrillers
- The Alienist
Robert McCammon: historical thrillers and horror
- Speaks the Nightbird
- Usher's Passing
Robert Holdstock: contemporary haunted horror fantasy
- Mythago Wood
Robert Harris: historical and conteporary thrillers
- Fatherland
- Pompeii
- Enigma
- Archangel
Alan Furst: WWII espionage thrillers
- Night Soldiers
Elizabeth Kostova: historical thrillers
- The Historian
David Brin: science fiction
- Glory Season
James P. Blaylock: contemporary fantasy
- The Paper Grail
F. Paul Wilson: horror thrillers
- The Keep
- Sims
- Nightworld
Gordon R. Dickson: post apocalyptic
- Time Storm
- Wolf and Iron
Connie Willis: time travel
- Doomsday Book
Larry Niven: science fiction and post apocalyptic
- Ring World
- The Mote in God's Eye
- Lucifer's Hammer
Vernor Vinge: science fiction space opera
- A Fire Upon the Deep
- A Deepness in the Sky
Kim Stanley Robinson: hard science fiction
- Red Mars
Philip Jose Farmer: science fiction
- To Your Scattered Bodies Go
Orson Scott Card: science fiction
- Ender's Game
Nelson DeMille: thrillers
- The Charm School
Greg Iles: contemporary and WWII thrillers
- Spandeau Phonenix
- Black Cross
- Dead Sleep
Stephen King: horror
- Under the Dome
- The Stand
Dean Koontz: thrillers
- Intensity
- The Husband
|
|
|
|
Thanks! It was very watchable, and I even got away with listening (without viewing) to bits of it while doing light work. Roger Penrose is another name I would keep an eye out for. He wrote "Shadows of the Mind" back in 1994, and although I found some parts very hard to read, the reason I liked it is because he seems to reject the idea of the "singularity" fiction where machines eventually become conscious. He used mathematical reasoning to show that consciousness is non-algorithmic and therefore cannot be programmed into any computer, regardless of technology - it's basically a paradox. I guess a lot of futurists hate him for that, and I'd be interested to see what else he has come up with more recently. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have coauthored papers together. All that aside, I side with the notion that a computer program currently executing embodies none of the aspects of consciousness as we would know it. It would be a classical example of a philosophical zombie in action. However, I also contend that consciousness would and should reside in the hardware which the computer program would be running, but whatever degree of consciousness it would be experiencing would be largely independent of the internal subjects the computer program is processing. Given my statement about proto-consciousness, some degree of consciousness exists everywhere, and thus the computer hardware could have consciousness, even if it is less than a bacterium. But it would only be coincidental if that consciousness was related to the subject matter of the computer program's cogitations. Just because machine instructions are moving and changing data within the program, does not mean there is a one to one correspondence to the idea of consciousness we might expect. |
|
|
|
I believe the ultimate explanation is that all matter either has a complementary yet undiscovered attribute, that, for lack of a better word, shall be called 'proto-consciousness'. What this means is that all matter in the universe has a quality attached to it which is consciousness, but in general, unrealized. Certain combinations, structures, and various chemical interactions amplify this quality of consciousness. Discovering this proto-consciousness will require more than studying neuron interactions. So.... A sufficiently large, chemically and structurally complex rock might be conscious? How would we even know? I cannot tell if you are engaging in pugnacious prattle or conceptive cogitations on the matter. Assuming the latter, you should ask yourself, is there a threshold at which consciousness ceases to be, or is it all a matter of degree? |
|
|
|
|
Many people actually think they're addressing the "Hard Problem" or don't comprehend what the "Hard Problem" is. They go on with their studies of the "Easy Problem", which is fine and necessary, but the solution to the "Easy Problem" does not explain consciousness.
Daniel Dennet (you should read Daniel Dennett, by the way) is someone who thinks he's providing a solution to the "Hard Problem" by claiming it doesn't exist.
What is the Easy Problem? It's determining how the brain allows us to function. It's not an easy problem, but in comparison to the Hard Problem, it is easy. The Easy Problem is about discovering the mechanical processes within the brain that process and store input, and output appropriate responses to enable survival, and general functioning within society.
What is the Hard Problem? It's determining why such mechanical processes lead to a sense of experience, a sense of awareness, etc. By default, we humans believe that most mechanical processes have no sense of experience, or sense of awareness. For example, the mechanical processes of rust, corrosion, wind, digestion, engines, motors, cell phones, etc.
What are philosophical zombies? They are the imaginative result of a thought experiment, in which we could conceive of the idea of people existing which do not have awareness, yet go about their lives in such a way, that when observing them and interacting with them, one cannot tell that they are not actually experiencing the world around them if one considers that there doesn't seem to be any reasonable explanation as to why we would ascribe the sense of experience to a mechanical process.
I believe the ultimate explanation is that all matter either has a complementary yet undiscovered attribute, that, for lack of a better word, shall be called 'proto-consciousness'. What this means is that all matter in the universe has a quality attached to it which is consciousness, but in general, unrealized. Certain combinations, structures, and various chemical interactions amplify this quality of consciousness. Discovering this proto-consciousness will require more than studying neuron interactions. Another individual worth reading is Stuart Hameroff.
|
|
|
|
Personally, I quest for knowledge everyday. And I learn everyday. By doing so, I realize that I would never make a statement like you, until the day I die, no matter how long I may live.
Oh, indeed, I do learn new things every day, and continually seek knowledge. But I am not in need of education. And certainly not from the likes of you. Then stop requesting that I revive a certain thread and summarize large quantities of scientific studies for you. |
|
|
|
Because I contend that I need no further education.
You may not need any more education, as long as you operate within the bounds of your knowledge. But you have stepped outside of those bounds by promoting your political ideology with examples from a domain that you currently remain ignorant of: ecology. I see no ignorance. That's the problem. You say I am ignorant, I say I am not. Prove it. My proof lies with your own statement: Because I contend that I need no further education.
Personally, I quest for knowledge everyday. And I learn everyday. By doing so, I realize that I would never make a statement like you, until the day I die, no matter how long I may live. I would never make a claim that I need no further education, in virtually any domain. The wiser one gets, the more he's aware of how little he knows. However, you're free to believe you know it all, and by extension, appear the fool in discussion. |
|
|
|
Because I contend that I need no further education.
You may not need any more education, as long as you operate within the bounds of your knowledge. But you have stepped outside of those bounds by promoting your political ideology with examples from a domain that you currently remain ignorant of: ecology. So, either correct my "ignorance", or fuck off. Either way, you won't have to deal with it any more.
I currently am correcting your ignorance by pointing out that you are ignorant of the fact that you need more knowledge within certain domains before you conflate your political ideology with ecology and other environmental issues. You have now been informed of this shortcoming. In the future, don't push your political ideals by claiming its environmental effects until you are well informed about ecology, and other environmental issues. I see no reason to "fuck off", as you say, if you continue to do so, while willfully choosing to remain uninformed on the complexities of the environment. By willfully, I mean by your own admission, as quoted below: Because I contend that I need no further education.
|
|
|
|
What is that but an admission that you're both lacking in information about the environment, and too lazy to proactively study it yourself?
Specifically, it's a request for you to either get off your lazy ass and finish what you started, or fuck off. Either way, stop saying that my knowledge of the environment is so lacking when you can remedy that, and have yet to even prove it. Ever hear the saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?" I have provided you with book links. It's not my responsibility to retype the content of those books here. Nor is it my responsibility to be your teacher. If you want to educate yourself, then do so. If not, then stop tying your political agendas to domains of knowledge you are ignorant of. The knowledge is out there. Go get it. But never say that I am responsible for your own education. I cannot fathom where you think you are justified in calling me lazy when it's your education we are discussing. |
|
|
|
Vague and meaningless chatter.
Thanks for the summary. Saved me from having to read the rest of your post. Your knowledge on the environment is so limited, it makes no sense for you to even consider pushing your fantasy political ideal within the context of environmental issues. to reiterate: You're more than welcome to necro your thread where you were educating us about the dangers of free markets to the environment, or you can go back to wanking to avant-garde films. I don't recall yanking your chain.
What is that but an admission that you're both lacking in information about the environment, and too lazy to proactively study it yourself? And regarding films, I believe it was you who said Woman in the Dunes and Pale Flower were shitty foreign films. I quote below: If I haven't read the propaganda books you recommend me, what makes you think I'm going to watch the shitty foreign movies you suggest? Now if you have something to add to the discussion, please do. If not, go jack off again to the picture of the spotted owl.
You're displaying ignorance when compared against film critics and the public alike, further compounded by your own admission that haven't seen the films, and thus are in no position to judge. Here's two more recommendations for you, so I can see you make more of a fool of yourself as you render your uneducated opinion on the matter: watch Yi Yi and Tokyo Story. I think your actions are an excellent summary of you: you are pretentiously knowledgeable about things you don't actually know anything about. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
