 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 12:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A
>> wonderfully fun bit of fiction.
>
> Simulacron 3 (Counterfeit World in the UK) by Daniel F. Galouye? Or The
> Tunnel Under the World by Frederik Pohl?
>
The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't. Calculating God isn't abou
t
the universe being a simulation, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.
It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.
> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.
Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author.
And the synopsis looks OK.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.
>
> It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.
I am looking for one even as we speak. :-) (It certainly explains why it's
not on the Kindle. ;-)
>> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.
>
> Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author.
> And the synopsis looks OK.
As for that, Greg Egan is my favorite hard SF writer right now. Pretty much
everything he has written is very, very thought provoking. I also am quite
enjoying the Neal Asher stories, especially the Spatterjay series.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2011 1:44 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.
>>
>> It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.
>
> I am looking for one even as we speak. :-) (It certainly explains why
> it's not on the Kindle. ;-)
>
I've got a pdf copy in my collection if you can't find it (676 k).
>>> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.
>>
>> Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author.
>> And the synopsis looks OK.
>
> As for that, Greg Egan is my favorite hard SF writer right now. Pretty
> much everything he has written is very, very thought provoking. I also
> am quite enjoying the Neal Asher stories, especially the Spatterjay series.
>
I've read some Greg Egan, he is good. I don't think I've read Asher, tho'.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I've read some Greg Egan, he is good. I don't think I've read Asher, tho'.
Start with The Skinner. That's my favorite of the bunch. Lots of interesting
philosophy amongst all the plot.
(I did have to giggle at some of the weapons, like the anti-photon weapon,
or the full-spectrum laser.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 2:27 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I think we need to distinguish between DNA that isn't used for anything,
>>> and DNA which actually produces proteins, but they don't do anything
>>> really useful.
>>>
>>> Just having a sequence in your genome doesn't really cost that much.
>>> Synthesizing it into a protein is much more expensive.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't surprise me if non-eukaryotes have fewer genes turned on,
>>> and possibly smaller genomes, but I doubt that they have radically
>>> "cleaner" genomes.
>
>> You are forgetting that you *still* have to copy all that extra stuff,
>> when ever you divide the cell, so there is still a cost to synthesize
>> all the copies, before the cell splits to form new cells.
>
> Yes, there is a cost. What I'm saying is that it's a very small cost.
>
>> Also, its not
>> a simple case of, "just ignore the stuff I don't use", something has to
>> run through the pattern, decide what needs to be unfolded, or folded,
>> jump past any stuff that is folded into an unusable state, etc.
>
> It's not like a computer, doing a linear scan of the entire genome
> looking for active genes. It doesn't work like that.
>
> As far as I know (and I'm not an expert on the subject), having extra
> inactive genes imposes very little penalty for transcription.
>
>> And, most of the code, unlike in multi-celled organisms, is going to be
>> "on". There is no reason to turn parts off, except for mitosis, and the
>> like, if you are not differentiating the cells
>
> False.
>
> Unicellular organisms might not build colonies of differentiated cells,
> but that does *not* mean that all genes are switched on, all the time.
>
> There are organisms that can metabolise both aerobically and
> anaerobically. That's two different metabolic pathways, involving
> different sets of proteins. Many if not most organisms can utilise more
> then one food source. That's different sets of proteins. Many organisms
> have a life-cycle more complex them just "grow, divide, grow, divide".
> That requires different sets of proteins. Some cells even signal each
> other, and undergo limited differentiation under certain conditions.
> More sets of genes. Then there are genes only used in response to attack
> or damage. And so forth.
>
> Seriously. Few if any organisms go around with *all* their genes
> switched on all the time.
Well.. Ok, saying "all" may have been a bit inaccurate. What I meant is
you don't generally see, with a few exceptions, entire sets of genes
"off" all the time, once they have been used, such as developmental
precursors, etc. In any case, you assumption of what the cost may be is
precisely that, an assumption. My assumption is, based on the article I
linked to, that the costs *must* be higher than you are assuming.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 10:17 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
>>
>>> Well, give a definition that shows two men are the same species, that
>>> a bacteria's descendants are the same species, and that these two
>>> populations of fruit flies are the same species. What exactly has to
>>> be in the genetics?
>>
>> I don't think you get it. What I said is that the claim "two groups of
>> animals have been speciated away from each other if they won't interbreed
>> because of instinctual preference" (rather than their genes being
>> incompatible) is an incorrect definition.
>>
>> You can't argue pro that definition with the argument "well, you can't
>> give a better definition". That argument coulud be used to defend
>> anything.
>
> I'm not arguing against it. I'm asking you what your definition is. You
> say "it's genetics", but that isn't enough. You're treating my question
> as if I'm saying "you're wrong." I'm happy to be shown you're right, but
> you haven't done that yet.
>
> *You* are the one asserting it's genetics and can't be just behavior.
> *You* are saying *I* am wrong. But you're not supporting that. You're
> just saying it louder.
>
The problem here is that, in the case of fruit flies, the "behavior" is
genetic, but your counter example is not. Thus, it cannot represent
either a valid counter example, nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
Show that the behavior of the fruit flies can be "trained", or otherwise
altered, without changing the genetics, or introducing, say, the right
pheromone on the female (which is just a short cut to altering *its*
genetics).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:49:42 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Well, the reason both sides make the argument is that its correct. If
>> you don't enforce absolute moral codes
>
> The world is shades of grey, not just black and white.
>
> Jim
I know this, you know this, they... often make the accusations like
"moral relativism", which is *literally* the statement that, "You treat
the world as shades of gray, but in *fact* its black and white!" If you
deal with the world based on trying to comprehend why things work, you
end up with a case of moral relativism, and uncertainty, where the
answer cannot always be known, or even suspected, merely because you
find the behavior questionable, but it fails to fit neatly into some
preexisting box.
In fact, in reference to an example already included, even the ones that
do, often turn out to have negative consequences only *because of* the
conditions they where tried in. I would argue, for example, that the
consequence for some girl playing naughty with her dog today might
*maybe* be having the dog taken away, and jail time. A few hundred years
ago they had the girl and dog burned to ash, and the ashes scattered,
to, "prevent anyone even thinking of such a thing ever again". Its even
a bit iffy as to whether or not something that can rip your throat out,
if angered, can't "consent", which is the core argument for even
requiring jail time, or removal of the animal.
But that is an example that "most" people still find objectionable
enough to demand it remain illegal. There are thousands of others, from
showing ankles, or marrying between "races" that we reject as invalid
things to disdain now. Why? Because a) the arguments against them where
invalid to start with, and based solely on either "ick", prejudice,
tradition, or religion, and b) every single imagine consequence of them
proved to be wrong. And.. While we get different hypothesis, based on
completely different sets of imaginary threats, both from the far left
and right, I would argue that, for the more "reality based" community in
the middle, the far lefts kind of crazy is *way* less accepted than the
right's. Why? Because the right's is religious, traditional, caters to
existing prejudice, perceptions of "ick" already in place, etc., while
the other side's is often foreign, if it is traditional some place, not
common place, or flat pulled out of their asses yesterday, not out of
someone else's 1,000 years ago or more.
This is why some crazy seems crazier than others, even when both are
supported *only* by rhetoric, wild hypothesis about consequences,
appeals to authority, and denial of contrary data and evidence.
In short, what you already believe is more likely to be true *seems*
more true, even when supported by the same level of complete absence of
actual facts, and even if confronted with those that directly imply that
it is wrong, flawed, or too generalized, in some fundamental way.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 10:27 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:37:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Its this thinking, and the inadvertent support for it, which makes the
>> national day of prayer a problem. For them, it *does* endorse it, and
>> they quite clearly do not think that "endorsing" religion, even their
>> own, is a problem, only denying others their own (save, again, for any
>> conflicts in expression, in which case their own overrides the "wrong"
>> one).
>
> So if even one nutjob thinks that something the government does is an
> endorsement of religion, then it is?
>
Not just the nut jobs. The problem is, the Overton Window has shifted so
badly, in some cases, to one side, than even the people that might
otherwise *not* be classified as nuts accept that it *is* a sort of
indirect endorsement, and that there isn't any real problem doing so.
That the real nut jobs would turn around and declare 90% of Christians
in the country as "false believers", and have stated as much in public
forums, is either ignored as unlikely, waved off as not a real threat,
or completely missed, by people who, never the less, if polled, would
insist that the NDoP is OK, and so is posting the Ten Commandments on
every building in the city.
When things get that far out of sync, "framing" things, so they are
supposed to be universally good for everyone, only benefits the people
that want to use that framing to shove the window even farther over.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The problem here is that, in the case of fruit flies, the "behavior" is
> genetic, but your counter example is not.
What counter-example do you think I'm claiming?
> Thus, it cannot represent
> either a valid counter example, nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was wrong
in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond "it's
genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same species.
> Show that the behavior of the fruit flies can be "trained", or otherwise
> altered, without changing the genetics,
Well, you take a homogenous group of fruit flies. You put them in a two
different environments for a while. You bring them back together. Their
behavior is changed. I don't know if the change is genetic or not. It would
seem to me that fruit flies have very little behavior that isn't dictated
genetically - it's not like you can train them to do tricks. I didn't see
anything in the reference I gave that said the fruit flies were still
genetically compatible. Warp seems to be asserting that the fruit flies are
still genetically compatible, and it's just that they're not sufficiently
friendly with the other group any more or something.
I'm simply asking Warp to tell me what test he would use to find out if two
individuals are the same species. You can't just say "it's genetic." Yes, we
understand that, but the details are what we're arguing about.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
