 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-1-2011 18:13, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Does that prove that there is nothing "running" our universe - ie it's
>> not some computer simulation inside another far more complex universe?
>
> It means that there isn't some "value" that exists before we measure it.
> It's possible that the super-universe is simulating ours, but if so,
> that super-universe also has purely random interactions in it.
And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous. By
applying occam's razor the answer is therefore: yes. Surprising isn't it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous.
Not necessarily. Only in this one particular case. The super-universe might
be controlling the probabilities, for example, or the constants like c or q.
--
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 15-1-2011 0:20, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous.
>
> Not necessarily. Only in this one particular case. The super-universe
> might be controlling the probabilities, for example, or the constants
> like c or q.
>
Only if these constants are free variables. I don't know if they are.
Actually for many constants we don't know why they have a specific value
(or even if they are constants at all). It may turn out that all of them
can be computed without reference to any measurements or that there are
a few free variables in this universe or perhaps that some depend on the
time since the big bang. Only if there are true free variables among the
constants you super universe could exist. Or actually if that is not the
case we might still find another way that that super universe might
exist. Sort of like finding a way that a god might still have an
influence this universe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Or actually if that is not the
> case we might still find another way that that super universe might
> exist.
Sure. I'm sure none of us know enough cosmology to rule out whether this
universe could be simulated.
Heck, *you* could be simulated and I and all the scientists you've ever
heard of could be just part of the simulation.
> Sort of like finding a way that a god might still have an
> influence this universe.
Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A wonderfully
fun bit of fiction.
--
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 12:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A
> wonderfully fun bit of fiction.
I’ll give that a try since you recommend it. I take it you’ve read
Simulacron 3 (Counterfeit World in the UK) by Daniel F. Galouye? Or The
Tunnel Under the World by Frederik Pohl?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
>
> I’ll give that a try since you recommend it. I take it you�
�ve read
> 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 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 10:17 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
Or, to put it another way, it seems very odd to say "No, your definition is
wrong", and when I ask "Well, what's the right definition, then?" for the
other party to go on the defensive. I find it's very rare for someone to
claim that the definition of a scientific word is wrong without actually
being able to specify what they think the definition is.
--
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 Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:50:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yes, I particularly liked "Hit me with your Battle Hymn", but they all
>> were outstanding.:-) It's rare for that game not to be good, unless
>> Jeremy's involved.;-)
>>
>>
> Oh! No! Jeremy's great.
s/great/grate - fixed that for you. ;-) (Seriously, though, he's very
funny because he knows he can't sing and has fun with it - and that *is*
funny.)
>> It's funny that you mention Beethoven's 5th, because we've started
>> listening to ISIRTA again as well, and as you know, that's a regular
>> feature of that show.
>
> No I didn't. I listened to ISIRTA live when it was broadcast. And that
> was a long time ago.
:-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>> Which episode was "Where Did you Get That Hat" to "Dambuster's March"?
>> I probably have it already (I've got what I*think* is a complete
>> collection of all the shows, but I've been wrong before<G>).
>>
> S5 E2 Series 5 Episode 2
> I've got a lot that were recorded and uploaded on The Goons Depository.
> If you have any missing I may have them. Unfortunatly the sound quality
> is a bit iffy on some of them.
That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they originated
from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you know the
broadcast date on that one?
> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
well.
> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
reference to that site. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2011 8:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> :-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
> around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
> song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>
To be honest, I find ISIRTA dated now and I’ve never been a fan of John
Cleese.
>>> Which episode was "Where Did you Get That Hat" to "Dambuster's March"?
>>> I probably have it already (I've got what I*think* is a complete
>>> collection of all the shows, but I've been wrong before<G>).
>>>
>> S5 E2 Series 5 Episode 2
>> I've got a lot that were recorded and uploaded on The Goons Depository.
>> If you have any missing I may have them. Unfortunatly the sound quality
>> is a bit iffy on some of them.
>
> That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they originated
> from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you know the
> broadcast date on that one?
>
Yes.
>> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
>
> Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
> well.
>
Have you sceen "do not adjust your set" or "At lat the 1948 show"?
>> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
>> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>
> LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
> reference to that site. :-)
>
Just to make sure you read to the end :-P
1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 9:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
The distinction here would be, "Its genetic, but the genetics involve
purely 'behavior', not development." Obviously, the combination of
genetics from two individuals is a "developmental" issue, such that you
could have compatibility on that level, but not in the behavior level.
You could have the opposite (not terribly uncommon, despite the ick
factor) where the developmental aspects are 100% incompatible, but
behavior, for some reason, is driven wrong. For simpler species, which
could be a tiny flaw in a pheromone receptor, which suddenly "reacted"
to the wrong species. For complex ones, it can be a result of plasticity
in the behavior, resulting in what amount to false associations with the
target species. In either case, the "genetics" on the developmental
level simply won't allow it to work.
That behavior "can be" driven by genetics is not the key factor. It is
*if* the genetic driven characteristics actually result in changes
either behaviorally, or developmentally, which prevent cross breeding.
The fruit fly case is unusual, in that the deviation is purely, for now,
in the behavioral aspects, but it wouldn't take too many tweaks in the
rest of the genome, once trading of such changes no longer take place,
to make it *both* behavioral and developmental.
Its still "genetics driven", either way. Its just more.. reversible, of
other factors in the developmental process itself do not yet derail
cross breeding. I would argue things like Ligers and the like, do not
qualify the two species as "same", since the result can't produce more
of its own, or of either of its parent species. The developmental code
has changed sufficiently that even if the behavior can be overcome, the
other aspects *cannot*. But, there was certainly, at some stage, a point
where this wasn't true, or where it was only true for a larger
percentage of offspring than it was successful.
--
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 10:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
>
> Or, to put it another way, it seems very odd to say "No, your definition
> is wrong", and when I ask "Well, what's the right definition, then?" for
> the other party to go on the defensive. I find it's very rare for
> someone to claim that the definition of a scientific word is wrong
> without actually being able to specify what they think the definition is.
>
Scientific terms, like biology, get messy, when they skirt the edges of
what they *do* define, especially *in* biology. In this case, the
definition can get fuzzy, since some might argue that producing "any"
offspring, sterile or not, makes for the same species. Others that this
isn't any where near sufficient.
--
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:
> Scientific terms, like biology, get messy, when they skirt the edges of
> what they *do* define, especially *in* biology. In this case, the
> definition can get fuzzy,
Yes. That's what I'm saying. That seems to be what Warp is denying. Hence my
question to him.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
No, that's actually your claim. I'm talking about genetics. You are
talking about everything else other than genetics, including behavior,
gender and whatnot.
The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
Let me put it this way: Why are dogs and horses different species?
Is it because they simply won't mate because of behavioral and physical
differences, or is it because even if you tried to fertilize a horse
ovum with a dog sperm, nothing will happen because they are genetically
incompatible?
You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-1-2011 9:27, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, that's actually your claim. I'm talking about genetics. You are
> talking about everything else other than genetics, including behavior,
> gender and whatnot.
>
> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
There is no universal acknowledged definition of species, nor can there
be. As working 'hypothesis' both the behavioral and the your more
restricted definition are used.
The fact that we now have 3 species of elephant is because the African
forest species did not interbreed with the savanna one for millions of
years even though it genetically still can*. The definition of species
is part of what is behind the still raging discussion. See also the wiki
pages on elephant and african elephant.
> Let me put it this way: Why are dogs and horses different species?
> Is it because they simply won't mate because of behavioral and physical
> differences, or is it because even if you tried to fertilize a horse
> ovum with a dog sperm, nothing will happen because they are genetically
> incompatible?
>
> You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
I am sure you are aware that you have not answered his question. Even if
there is no universal accepted definition of species, for the sake of
the discussion you could still provide him with yours.
*) yet on the African Elephant page there is also 'but hybrids between
the two species commonly occur.' If that happened and the offspring is
fertile the genetic pool should be mixed, yet it apparently isn't.
Consult your resident elephant expert for more information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
Also, just as an aside, I'm not sure that the behavior of the fruit flies
isn't genetic. I didn't see anything in any of the descriptions I've read
where the scientists later tried to do artificial insemination to see if it
worked. You're jumping to conclusions that because there's only 16
generations between the two sets of fruit flies that it isn't enough to
cause a genetic incompatibility.
> You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
No, I never said anything like that.
--
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 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:29:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 8:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> :-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
>> around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
>> song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>>
>>
> To be honest, I find ISIRTA dated now and I’ve never been a fan of John
> Cleese.
It is fairly dated, but we find it interesting because of that.
With Cleese, I'm kinda "on again/off again" as a fan. Some of his stuff
is really good, other bits, not so much.
>> That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they
>> originated from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you
>> know the broadcast date on that one?
>>
> Yes.
Do you want to share it? ;-)
>>> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
>>
>> Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
>> well.
>>
> Have you sceen "do not adjust your set" or "At lat the 1948 show"?
I haven't. :-)
>>> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
>>> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>>
>> LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
>> reference to that site. :-)
>>
> Just to make sure you read to the end :-P
>
> 1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball
>
> :-D
Of course I read to the end. Just not when I'm composing (as you can
probably tell <g>). I don't seem to have anything from 1976 in my
collection <shame>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Simulacron 3
I'm about 3/4ths the way through this. I can't imagine why this hasn't been
turned into what could be an excellent action/suspense movie. (I had
already read Tunnel Under the World, but it was really too short to turn
into a movie without spoiling it, methinks.)
--
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 17/01/2011 1:21 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Simulacron 3
>
> I'm about 3/4ths the way through this. I can't imagine why this hasn't
> been turned into what could be an excellent action/suspense movie.
I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it that I can
hardly remember anything about it other than the plot. I agree that it
would make a good film but SF films in those days were either “cowboys
in space” or horror movies like “The Thing”.
Another good story of his is “Dark Universe” but that would have made a
better radio play than a movie.
> (I had already read Tunnel Under the World, but it was really too short to
> turn into a movie without spoiling it, methinks.)
>
They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sentinel” but you
are probably right.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 1:12 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Do you want to share it?;-)
A list of the Series 5 episodes that I have:
1976-03-06 - s05e01 - Footballers Ball 11,150,312
1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball 13,483,870
1976-03-20 - s05e03 - Astronomers Ball. 12,735,844
1976-03-27 - s05e04 - Geographers Ball. 10,838,435
1976-04-03 - s05e05 - Electrical Goods and Allied Ind. 12,793,629
1976-04-10 - s05e06 - Tailors Ball 26,607,153
Here are the series 1 episodes. Farmers' Ball only has one song to the
tune..
1972-04-11 - s01e01 - Dr Finlays Casebook 12,726,325
1972-04-18 - s01e02 - Plumbers Ball 27,906,884
1972-04-25 - s01e03 - Clothing Manufacturers Ball 25,472,818
1972-05-02 s01e04 Zookeepers' Ball 14,127,516
1972-07-04 - s01e13 - Geographical Society Ball 23,535,199
X-1972-05-16 s01e06 Farmers' Ball 2,472,576
I’ve got 6 episodes from series 2, 1 from series 3 and 6 from series 4.
If you let me know what you want I can send them to you. BTW I’ve lost
your email address so you can use mine in the header.
"Do not adjust your set" and "At last the 1948 show" were TV shows,
precursors to Monty P. The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah band were the resident
group on "Do not adjust your set". I may have something there too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
> You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
it isn't.
Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
(even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly. A group of humans
deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
species.
The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
behavior.
> > You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> > other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> > of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
> No, I never said anything like that.
You didn't, but you make it sound like that when you overemphasize the
role of behavior in the definition of "species".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it tha
t I can
> hardly remember anything about it other than the plot.
It's very nicely done, and I can imagine it turning into a good movie, wi
th
both action, mystery/suspense, and all kinds of philosophical overtones.
> They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The S
entinel” but you
> are probably right.
Yes, but they padded it tremendously. Not unlike how Total Recall made a
fun
movie while retaining only a modicum of plot from the story. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
Fair enough. You said it so confidently that I thought you had better
definition in mind.
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
I disagree. The definition of "species" that I'm familiar with is "two
populations are distinct species if they can not or normally would not
interbreed." So even if tigers and lions *could* have fertile offspring,
they'd still be different species because they're in different habitats.
> The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.
But the study I pointed to said nothing about the genes of the fruit flies.
You're *assuming* it's merely "instinctive behavoir" that didn't affect the
genes.
If your genes tell you not to interbreed, even if artificial insemination
would work, are you a different species? What if a fertile offspring could
be produced, but only if humans put the embryo in a completely artificial
environment? I.e., if the mother could not bring the offspring to term
naturally?
Plus, of course, we can't really look at genes and tell whether the result
will be fertile offspring. Maybe in theory that's true, but in practice,
while it's pretty easy to tell when the species are far apart, it might be
very difficult to tell if the species is very close together.
> You didn't, but you make it sound like that when you overemphasize the
> role of behavior in the definition of "species".
And to me, you seem to be completely disregarding the role of behavior. I'm
not overemphasizing it except compared to you, perhaps. I'm just thinking
that if human technology has to get involved to create offspring, chances
are good they're different species. If I did genetic engineering to create a
creature that's half human, half ape, that wouldn't make humans and apes the
same species. And if I stick insulin-producing genes into a bacteria, does
that mean I have a new species or what?
--
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 Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:09:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> BTW I’ve lost
> your email address so you can use mine in the header.
Done - just sent you a list of what I've got through 2006. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 6:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:09:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> BTW I’ve lost
>> your email address so you can use mine in the header.
>
> Done - just sent you a list of what I've got through 2006. :)
>
Got it :-D
I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-1-2011 16:46, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
>
>> You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
>> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
>
> Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
>
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
No, and I am surprised that you still dare say that without any backup
sources.
> A group of humans
> deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
> species.
Not if it is just for one or a few generations. And it depend on the
reason why.
Note that this remark is either inconsistent or an open door as we would
not call both groups humans if it were different species.
> The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.
Perhaps in a universe where all species were independently created, but
not in this one. Sometimes I wonder why the whole world has to conform
to your ideas of how it should be. Why can you not just simply admire
its complexity?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 5:34 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it that I can
>> hardly remember anything about it other than the plot.
>
> It's very nicely done, and I can imagine it turning into a good movie,
> with both action, mystery/suspense, and all kinds of philosophical
> overtones.
Too bad he died young. :-(
>
>> They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sentinel” but
>> you are probably right.
>
> Yes, but they padded it tremendously. Not unlike how Total Recall made a
> fun movie while retaining only a modicum of plot from the story. :-)
>
Yes they made a novel out of a short story.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>
> No, really, it doesn't. At least not to me.
Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:09:53 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>>
>> No, really, it doesn't. At least not to me.
>
> Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?
I couldn't possibly speak to all religions. Some involve meditation,
which would be very roughly analogous.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
Here's my problem with that:
By this very statement, the fruitflies are different species. It's simply
the decisions made by a group of *humans* that determines whether the fruit
flies reproduce. They're not going to do it on their own. The only way it
would happen is if humans decided to pick up teeny tiny scalpels and make it
happen.
And isn't instinct driven by genetics? How can you say genetically-dictated
behavior doesn't contribute to two creatures being different species, but
then say a species in theory can be determined simply by looking at the
genetics?
Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call
them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of
those two to term without the genetics of human beings. Namely, the genetics
of human beings that gave us hands and brains big enough to invent
artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization and artificial wombs. I'd
argue that if trying to bring a child to term kills the mother and the child
before the child is born, the two creatures are a different species.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And isn't instinct driven by genetics? How can you say genetically-dictated
> behavior doesn't contribute to two creatures being different species, but
> then say a species in theory can be determined simply by looking at the
> genetics?
Genetically-dictated behavior may end up causing (true) speciation over
time (if it keeps the two groups genetically separate long enough). However,
by which definition can you say that they are *already* different species
when they are still fully capable of interbreeding?
> Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call
> them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of
> those two to term without the genetics of human beings.
You could as well argue that dog races which differ greatly in size are
of different species. However, they are not considered such. Even if one
dog race weights a hundred times more than another, they are still part
of the same species.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> by which definition can you say that they are *already* different species
> when they are still fully capable of interbreeding?
Who says they are, if they won't? I already supplied my definition. :-)
>> Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call
>> them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of
>> those two to term without the genetics of human beings.
>
> You could as well argue that dog races which differ greatly in size are
> of different species. However, they are not considered such. Even if one
> dog race weights a hundred times more than another, they are still part
> of the same species.
I'm just trying to figure out what your definition might be. I think
different dog races are the same species by my definition, while the whale
and dolphin would not be by my definition. So your analogy fails in that
respect.
--
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 1/17/2011 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:09:53 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>>>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>>>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>>>
>>> No, really, it doesn't. At least not to me.
>>
>> Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?
>
> I couldn't possibly speak to all religions. Some involve meditation,
> which would be very roughly analogous.
>
> Jim
The effects are certainly analogous, based on study of the effects. A
fact that is quite funny since you don't have to "meditate" *at* anyone
specific to get the result, or about anything specific, etc., so anyone
can do it, where prayer is supposedly "specific" to the deity(ies) in
questions.
That said, no, not all religions use either. Though, the only obvious
one I can think of would be Scientology. In principle, performance of a
ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify
as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural
forces. Prayer is simply the most common one for the two "recognized"
religions when ever this stuff comes up (i.e. Christians and Jews), may
be allowed for something like Muslims, if they bother to include them,
and isn't, technically, part of the third one they tend to mention, to
be "inclusive" - Buddhism. However, this is likely because 90% of the
people talking about religions in this context, don't know a bloody damn
thing about the religion, other than its been used as a "safe" one to
pick when talking about their "inclusiveness" for so long that its
almost Pavlovian to include it.
--
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 Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:29:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In principle, performance of a
> ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify
> as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural
> forces.
I think pretty much everyone follows rituals of some sort, regardless of
whether they admit to it or not.
Is it more or less religious, for example, to pray to a god, than it is
to wear a red shirt to a ballgame because the last time you went to a
ballgame wearing a red shirt, your team won?
Religion and superstition are very closely related in a lot of ways - so
much so that some would say they're the same.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2011 11:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:29:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> In principle, performance of a
>> ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify
>> as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural
>> forces.
>
> I think pretty much everyone follows rituals of some sort, regardless of
> whether they admit to it or not.
>
> Is it more or less religious, for example, to pray to a god, than it is
> to wear a red shirt to a ballgame because the last time you went to a
> ballgame wearing a red shirt, your team won?
>
> Religion and superstition are very closely related in a lot of ways - so
> much so that some would say they're the same.
>
> Jim
Why hedge the matter and say "some would say". There is hardly any
difference at all between someone ringing a bell, to scare off evil Kami
at the new year, or someone putting on the same shirt they did the last
time their team won. The only real difference is that one is followed by
a lot of people, the other, just by one. Its still the same thing. The
only thing making Prayer different is that it often includes a process
which "can" sometimes trigger the same effects as meditation, where as
ringing a magic bell, or wearing a particular shirt, doesn't.
Mind, this wouldn't stop some people arguing that this was evidence of
something "different" going on, then insisting that "different" means
"spooks and 2,000 year old zombies".
--
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 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there is.
Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm) wrong?
> There is hardly any
> difference at all between someone ringing a bell, to scare off evil Kami
> at the new year, or someone putting on the same shirt they did the last
> time their team won. The only real difference is that one is followed by
> a lot of people, the other, just by one. Its still the same thing. The
> only thing making Prayer different is that it often includes a process
> which "can" sometimes trigger the same effects as meditation, where as
> ringing a magic bell, or wearing a particular shirt, doesn't.
Depends on the individual. In both cases one can make the argument that
correlation does not imply causation. So what?
> Mind, this wouldn't stop some people arguing that this was evidence of
> something "different" going on, then insisting that "different" means
> "spooks and 2,000 year old zombies".
That doesn't mean there's a need to be offensive to those who take
comfort in wearing the red shirt to the basketball game, or to those who
take comfort in saying a prayer to a deity, real or not.
Similarly, I have on occasion used Tarot cards to help clarify my
thinking on topics. In my opinion, one has to read the cards
themselves. Why? Because there's absolutely nothing mystical about them
(or about astrology, for that matter). They're nothing more than systems
to help one frame thinking about something.
I haven't had to use that particular method to identify my own
motivations on something (or to help me think rationally about a decision
I was about to make) for quite some time.
Some people who read Tarot cards (especially for other people) look at
the results and say "it's mysticism" because the results are often what
people want.
But the principle at work, I think, really is confirmation bias.
Last time I seriously used the cards was deciding whether or not to take
a new job. I was having trouble focusing on what was important for me
and what was important for my family. We talked about it and went back
and forth, and I decided that I'd use a system to help me frame my
thoughts.
Now, ultimately, I knew I wanted to take the new job. I knew it was a
good decision, but I had some doubts.
So I put the cards down in a prescribed pattern where every single card
has a specific meaning based on where it is. And I referred to an
interpretation of the individual cards' meanings that helped me organize
my thoughts.
And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I wanted
out of a new job, I accepted the offer.
Nothing mystical about it at all. I used a system to identify what I
wanted and to identify/weigh the pros and cons before making a decision.
Now, if someone decides to say a prayer to a deity in order to make a
decision and as a result of framing their thoughts for this deity
(whether it exists or not is immaterial), is able to make a clear
decision.
Some call that divine intervention. You and I call it applying reason.
In either case, a decision is reached and if it goes well, whomever
credit goes to, a positive result is reached.
It's really no different than what I used to do when faced with a
particularly challenging IT problem - I'd call my wife. I found that in
explaining the problem to her, I could often find the solution, but the
act of trying to explain it to someone who's not an IT professional
really helped me understand the issue better.
So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those who
are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened - whether
that's the case or not.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say". There is hardly any
> difference at all
There's actually a fairly big difference between ritual and superstition,
even if the ritual is only practiced by one person.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I wanted
> out of a new job, I accepted the offer.
If you need to make a decision, flip a coin. Between the time the coin lands
and the time you look at it, you'll learn exactly what it is you're hoping
you'll find.
--
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 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
>
> Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there is.
> Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm) wrong?
>
Its called "critical thinking". Apparently a practice that isn't taught
too well in colleges (never mind it should start in grade school:
"After the full four years, 36 percent had shown no development in
critical thinking, reasoning and writing, according to the study, which
forms the basis of the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
on College Campuses.""
If you don't know how to interpret facts in the first place, you can
hardly, in the case of those people with the opinion there "is" some
huge difference, whine about someone else pointing out that there isn't
any. Right?
--
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 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those who
> are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened - whether
> that's the case or not.
>
> Jim
The problem is.. It doesn't just stop at them using it to effect their
*own* lives. Failure to recognize that it is a form of applied reasoning
(and I would argue that isn't always the case, since you need data to
reason from, and religion tends to reject wide ranges of data and
sources), leads people to trying to make decisions for *others* based on
the same reasoning. It also leads them, invariably, to false
equivalencies, failure to understand what they are actually advocating
for/against, etc. We spent decades in the US, far more than any other
country in the world, being "nice" to the religious, religious views,
religious interpretations, and telling everyone, "We respect the wacky
shit you believe!", we got fundamentalists, George Bush, Sarah Palin,
and the Tea Party, oh, and some bozo trying to build an Ark in Kentucky,
and whining about conspiracies, every time real experts, instead of his
own friend, claims his "attendance and income projections" are even more
fictional than Genesis.
Oh, right, and it also plays in to the hands of quack psychology, quack
pharmacology, quack gizmos, modern patent medicine gibberish, and all
the rest of the stuff, which preys in the same inability to tell the
difference between confirmation bias, placebo, and/or what their own
brain is doing, versus "quantum, spiritual, all natural, suplimental,
toothpaste", or what ever they have made up this week to sell the same
fools.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the
> >> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
> >
> > The first words of the first amendment to your constitution somehow
> > resonate in my head when I read that, causing a terrible pain...
> >
> Yeah, me too.
Btw, the attitude that Americans have towards their Constitution seems
quite strange. Seemingly they consider it an infallible and untouchable
holy scripture, and even the idea of going and changing even a single letter
of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)
This goes sometimes to such ridiculous extents as there being a small
controversy on whether a small smudge in article 1, section 10, is accidental
or really a comma. If it's really a comma (rather than an accidental drop of
ink), the sentence could ostensibly be interpreted slightly differently.
It feels like the Constitution is holier than the Bible itself. Not even
a small smudge can be altered! Instead, lots of speculation and controversy
arise about what is it that the authors really meant when they wrote the
constitution.
I don't understand where this idea is coming from. I have never heard
of any other country which would have such an attitude towards their
constitution. In most other countries I know of (obviously most importantly
Finland) the constitution reflects the current "state of art" in human
rights and the foundations of parliamentarian democracy. Changing the text
of the constitution is not something that can be done lightly, of course
(it requires, among other things, something like a 70% majority vote in the
parliament), but there are no qualms in doing so as needed.
The United States constitution and its first amendments reflect the
"state of art" of human rights and democracy of the 1780's. The world has
changed a bit since then. It was rather obviously impossible for the authors
to know how the world would be like in 2011.
Just consider the second amendment, for instance. In 1787 the most commonly
used handgun was a muzzle-loaded musket, which was very inaccurate and very
slow to load (the first fully self-contained breech-loaded cartridges were
not invented until about 1808, and eg. the modern revolver did not become
commonly used until Samuel Colt patented a revolver mechanism in 1836 that
led to its widespread use.) In the 1780's you could probably do more damage
with a sword than with a handgun.
That is the background under which the second amendment was written.
Nowadays it's used to argue for the right of people to own fully automatic
rapid-fire weapons such as the M16 rifle or the Browning M2 machine gun.
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what the authors had in mind when they wrote
the second amendment.
The original constitution of the United States is an invaluable piece of
history, but where is this idea coming from that it's perfect, infallible
and completely applicable to the modern world, over 200 years later?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
> existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
> Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)
Adding text to the end is how we change it. One amendment says "By the way,
now the federal government is allowed to pass laws about alcohol, too."
Another, later, says "That was a mistake. The federal government no longer
gets to do that."
> This goes sometimes to such ridiculous extents as there being a small
> controversy on whether a small smudge in article 1, section 10, is accidental
> or really a comma. If it's really a comma (rather than an accidental drop of
> ink), the sentence could ostensibly be interpreted slightly differently.
I think this is true of a great number of legal systems, really. Arguing
over the precise meaning of sentences and words and asking whether they
apply in this particular case is exactly what the whole appeals process is
about.
I'm not sure what drop of ink you're talking about. Are you exaggerating for
effect, or have you actually heard an argument about this? (I *have* heard
that in some contract disputes, but not the Constitution.)
> It feels like the Constitution is holier than the Bible itself. Not even
> a small smudge can be altered! Instead, lots of speculation and controversy
> arise about what is it that the authors really meant when they wrote the
> constitution.
It's the highest law in the country. If you can convince the supreme court
that the law as written means a certain thing, regardless of *why* it means
that, then that decision is enforced on everyone in the country. So, yeah,
it's a lot like the Bible, were God actually real and enforcing it. :-)
> That is the background under which the second amendment was written.
> Nowadays it's used to argue for the right of people to own fully automatic
> rapid-fire weapons such as the M16 rifle or the Browning M2 machine gun.
> Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what the authors had in mind when they wrote
> the second amendment.
Chances are, it is. The whole point of the second amendment is to give the
people forming the government the ability to overthrow the government if it
goes badly.
Now, admittedly, it turns out that *today*, we've figured out that this
"democracy" thing and this "federal" thing isn't too bad and is not too hard
to steer. But at the time, just coming off King's rule and feudalism, it
wasn't really obvious that a new democratic government was going to work
out. And, really, it wasn't until after the US Civil War that the federal
government really took over the governing from the individual states.
> The original constitution of the United States is an invaluable piece of
> history, but where is this idea coming from that it's perfect, infallible
> and completely applicable to the modern world, over 200 years later?
It's not. Most people don't think it is. That's why we have amendments every
few decades, including amendments that contradict what's already written.
It's just that the legal mechanisms for amending the constitution don't say
"cross out this text". Many other laws in this country do, but we just don't
do that with the federal constitution. It's not because there's some
strange reverence.
Some judges think it should be interpreted as "original intent". Some think
it should be interpreted in a more modern way. It's an ongoing battle, with
people picking sides not out of any particular philosophy but out of
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
