OK, now all we need
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Electrical activity within the brain.
How? My Ipod has electrical activity. Are you suggesting that it therefore has a mind also?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I suppose before we proceed with the argument it would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition of the 'mind'. However, I will say that although a 'mind' requires electrical activity, electrical activity does not require a 'mind'.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Electrical activity within the brain.
How? My Ipod has electrical activity. Are you suggesting that it therefore has a mind also?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Is this American Dream (of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work) then just a glorified myth that only the rich and powerful can aspire to, yet out of reach of the poor and weak ?
It is the most well tested and validated political mechanism for minimizing poverty and maximizing opportunity for the greatest possible number of people. Is it perfect? Nope. But it is the best system we have and has been historically validated to be so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
validated political mechanism for minimizing poverty and maximizing opportunity
Obviously it isn't perfect. If it were perfect you wouldn't have sheer numbers of peoples who are living in unsafe environments, unsound buildings, and close to real poverty. For a country that is as wealthy as the United States, the benefits that such peoples have is next to nothing having to go cap-in-hand for charity. Sorry, but that is not my idea "of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work", it sounds to me that a dose of social medicine would improve their lot enormously at relatively low costs.
-
Well, thats is indeed very interesting. However, What I am proposing is that our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop that generates the conscious em field as a kind of informational sink. So, feedback loops are all that is necessary for consciousness? The em field itself is conscious? Or is it the matter the field is working on that is conscious? Are all em fields conscious? Or only those associated with ion pumps? Where is the conciousness actually at in this model?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I suppose before we proceed with the argument it would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition of the 'mind'. However, I will say that although a 'mind' requires electrical activity, electrical activity does not require a 'mind'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I suppose before we proceed with the argument it would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition of the 'mind'.
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
However, I will say that although a 'mind' requires electrical activity, electrical activity does not require a 'mind'.
What is so special about electricity one way or another. It is merely a form of energy after all. Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
validated political mechanism for minimizing poverty and maximizing opportunity
Obviously it isn't perfect. If it were perfect you wouldn't have sheer numbers of peoples who are living in unsafe environments, unsound buildings, and close to real poverty. For a country that is as wealthy as the United States, the benefits that such peoples have is next to nothing having to go cap-in-hand for charity. Sorry, but that is not my idea "of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work", it sounds to me that a dose of social medicine would improve their lot enormously at relatively low costs.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Obviously it isn't perfect. If it were perfect you wouldn't have sheer numbers of peoples who are living in unsafe environments, unsound buildings, and close to real poverty. For a country that is as wealthy as the United States, the benefits that such peoples have is next to nothing having to go cap-in-hand for charity. Sorry, but that is not my idea "of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work", it sounds to me that a dose of social medicine would improve their lot enormously at relatively low costs.
Sorry, but your views have been validated to be incorrect. Poverty and economic 'unfairness' are minimized when economic efficiency is maximized. Allowing some sort of bureaucratic centralized management of economic processess ensures a lose of economic efficiency thus ensures an increase in poverty and unfairness.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I suppose before we proceed with the argument it would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition of the 'mind'.
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
However, I will say that although a 'mind' requires electrical activity, electrical activity does not require a 'mind'.
What is so special about electricity one way or another. It is merely a form of energy after all. Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
The energy generated by the steam engine would probably just be converted into electrical energy anyway. In fact, it wouldn't really be all that different - you'd be changing chemical energy into electrical energy, which is what the human body does.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Your view of Jefferson is not that far removed from the way Stalin used the name of Lenin to give weight to his own views.
I'm not the one misusing Jefferson in that way. Using a letter that Jefferson wrote to some church as a means of reinterpreting a constitution which represented the true political principles jefferson et al risked so much to create is far more characteristic of your allegation than is anything I have attributed to him. Jeffersonian government is the diametric oppostie of all forms of socialism. It was not established to provide individuals with welfare or to make life fair or to protect the weak from the strong or the poor from the rich. It was created to give the people the means of doing all of that for theselves. That is a simple fact supportable by every shred of actual historic information available.
Christian Graus wrote:
Nevertheless, like I said, there's other people here who both rob you of the chance to be an extreme point of view, and certainly I would not lump you in with them, in terms of the fact that you discuss and participate here.
My points of view would have been mainstream through out 90 percent or so of this nation's history and to 90 percent or so of its population.
Christian Graus wrote:
don't agree with you, but it's always good to discuss things. What I have against Illion and Adnan is not that I disagree, but that they refuse to defend or discuss their views.
I agree that points of view once made should be defended. However, I honestly don't find Illion's points (when he actually makes them) to be any more radical than most of those on the other side of the issues.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, I honestly don't find Illion's points (when he actually makes them) to be any more radical than most of those on the other side of the issues.
Tweedledee and tweedledummer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
The energy generated by the steam engine would probably just be converted into electrical energy anyway. In fact, it wouldn't really be all that different - you'd be changing chemical energy into electrical energy, which is what the human body does.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
And you are surprised, why?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And you are surprised, why?
Not surprised, just...*sigh* disappointed. Trying to prove something based on a gross oversimplification or screwy analogy is something, say, anti-evolutionists do all the time (eg "I'm tired of my son being taught that we came from monkeys in school. There's a pile of bricks in my backyard and I don't see it turning into a shed anytime soon!"), and I'm just sick of hearing it.
-
I agree, but, in a world where people insist on engaging these clowns, I feel I may as well join in to remind them that they have almost all been given a chance to defend their views, and have proven they cannot.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
I feel I may as well join in to remind them that they have almost all been given a chance to defend their views, and have proven they cannot.
Why bother? Stan, Ilion, Dato, CSS, and Adnan all have a very limited repertoire. They repeat the same few half-truths, perversions of logic, strawmen creation and destruction, and denials of reality over and over again. In return they often experience the joy of knowing that someone actually paid attention to their mediocre and parochial lives for five minutes. None of them, ever show enough of a grasp of rality for you to believe that they will understand what you think you are reminding them of.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Obviously it isn't perfect. If it were perfect you wouldn't have sheer numbers of peoples who are living in unsafe environments, unsound buildings, and close to real poverty. For a country that is as wealthy as the United States, the benefits that such peoples have is next to nothing having to go cap-in-hand for charity. Sorry, but that is not my idea "of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work", it sounds to me that a dose of social medicine would improve their lot enormously at relatively low costs.
Sorry, but your views have been validated to be incorrect. Poverty and economic 'unfairness' are minimized when economic efficiency is maximized. Allowing some sort of bureaucratic centralized management of economic processess ensures a lose of economic efficiency thus ensures an increase in poverty and unfairness.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
bureaucratic centralized management of economic processess
Perhaps hand-holding has its uses and benefits especially for those whose vulnerability is evident. A cradle to grave system does ensure that those who suffer such vulnerabilities do not fall below a certain safety net.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, I honestly don't find Illion's points (when he actually makes them) to be any more radical than most of those on the other side of the issues.
Tweedledee and tweedledummer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
2 of our trolls have posted and run for cover when asked to discuss their views, today. Illion did so late last night, so I guess we just need a post from Dato and then perhaps we can hope for peace for the rest of the day ? This place has become so ridiculous that Stan's views almost seem semi normal in comparison.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
The soap box gets a post every 3 to 4 hours. They don't seem to be taking up too much realestate.
MrPlankton
(bad guy)"Fear is a hammer, and when the people are beaten finally to the conviction that their existence hangs by a frayed thread, they will be led where they need to go."
(good guy)"Which is where?"
(bad guy)"To a responsible future in a properly managed world."
Dean Koontz, The Good Guymodified on Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:43 PM
-
Well, I think the point is that most people find it amusing. I find it sad, but also funny, and that's why they get press. I read that hells angels go out to stand between them and bereaved families they are trying to intimidate. It's a sad world when the hells angels are protecting innocent people from the attacks of a church, regardless of the minority position they occupy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
I read that hells angels go out to stand between them and bereaved families they are trying to intimidate.
The Hells Angels may have done this, but you may also be confusing them with the Patriot Guard.[^]
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lets just keep it simple and define it as 'being awake'.
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why couldn't a mind be generated by a steam engine for example?
The energy generated by the steam engine would probably just be converted into electrical energy anyway. In fact, it wouldn't really be all that different - you'd be changing chemical energy into electrical energy, which is what the human body does.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
Why? It would seem to me that any natural phenomenon would be reducible to, and best understood at, some basic, least complex, state.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The energy generated by the steam engine would probably just be converted into electrical energy anyway. In fact, it wouldn't really be all that different - you'd be changing chemical energy into electrical energy, which is what the human body does.
And what do we learn from that observation? What is so special about electricity that it is required for the existence of a conscious state?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
bureaucratic centralized management of economic processess
Perhaps hand-holding has its uses and benefits especially for those whose vulnerability is evident. A cradle to grave system does ensure that those who suffer such vulnerabilities do not fall below a certain safety net.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Perhaps hand-holding has its uses and benefits especially for those whose vulnerability is evident. A cradle to grave system does ensure that those who suffer such vulnerabilities do not fall below a certain safety net.
The problem is that no social safety net is ever safe enough. Once you have rationalized the need for one in the first place, there is no such concept as a 'minimal acceptable level of social security'. The same logic the justifies the existence for one at all justifies the existence of the most secure and comprehensive safty net any government can achieve.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Perhaps hand-holding has its uses and benefits especially for those whose vulnerability is evident. A cradle to grave system does ensure that those who suffer such vulnerabilities do not fall below a certain safety net.
The problem is that no social safety net is ever safe enough. Once you have rationalized the need for one in the first place, there is no such concept as a 'minimal acceptable level of social security'. The same logic the justifies the existence for one at all justifies the existence of the most secure and comprehensive safty net any government can achieve.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Even if some do fall through the safety net, it should be strong enough to catch most. And a safety net just does include a "minimal acceptable level of social security" but also includes compassion in times of personal and family crisis and that would include a minimum acceptable level of healthcare from Doctors surgery to hospitalised activities. A safety net has the capacity to be comprehensive but it does all boil down to the political will of the people and also of the peoples' representatives at State and National levels.
-
That was interesting, but ... That's a hard read - white text on a black background. Do these people not realise how hard that exercise in reading becomes.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That's a hard read - white text on a black background. Do these people not realise how hard that exercise in reading becomes.
Could be some kind of psychological experiment...