Scientific Civilization [modified]
-
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
Some 5000 years or so of actual civilization.
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:
But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
That's why i used the phrase 'except on a level so utterly trivial as to be meaningless.' My post was only a paragraph, Stan, did you really just stop at the first five words? There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output? Well, excuse me while I shit my pants - what an amazing insight. Nobody has ever thought of that before. It's like a 0.5 second footnote in an intro to introductory neurology course. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you?
Um, yes Stan, I do.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output?.
Well, except that its a black box which we are inside of. But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Um, yes Stan, I do.
Such as?
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.
-
Oakman wrote:
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates?
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
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:
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed. By the way, marijuana was also legal until about the same time. I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
Some 5000 years or so of actual civilization.
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.
That's still not particularly good evidence of your very strong assertion. For example, for thousands of years it was believed that time transcended everything, that one second was one second no matter who you are or what you're doing. Is civilisation dependent on this incorrect belief?
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output?.
Well, except that its a black box which we are inside of. But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Um, yes Stan, I do.
Such as?
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:
But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
No, not really. See my first post for details on how the brain is not a computer. You just abstract it like that. But since you're so married to the idea, why don't you explain how thinking of the brain as a computer enhances our understanding to a degree that warrants engaging with it on that level instead of with what the brain really works on - neurons, plasticity, etc.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Such as?
I have degrees in biochemistry and computer science, and I'm about halfway through my MD now.
- F
-
Rob Graham wrote:
That confirms it. You're a f***ing idiot.
Wow, you sure do wait until all the evidence is in, don't you? :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
I really doubt if he's done providing evidence...
-
That's still not particularly good evidence of your very strong assertion. For example, for thousands of years it was believed that time transcended everything, that one second was one second no matter who you are or what you're doing. Is civilisation dependent on this incorrect belief?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's still not particularly good evidence of your very strong assertion.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, its damned strong evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
For example, for thousands of years it was believed that time transcended everything, that one second was one second no matter who you are or what you're doing. Is civilisation dependent on this incorrect belief?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Obviously, the human perception of time has been entirely adequate for the purposes of maintaining civilization.
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:
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed. By the way, marijuana was also legal until about the same time. I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed.
:rolleyes: Neither opiates or cocaine played a significant role in maintaining American civilization at any time in our history. To suggest that it was is yet another historic absurdity on your part. Now, if you were to argue tha alcohol played such a role, I suppose I would have to consider that point. But there is simply no evidence of large scale general dependency by the population on the drugs you mention. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
I'm not an avid supporter of the current drug laws if that is what you are referring to. I think the federal government has a role to play in keeping drugs from entering the country and from moving across state borders, but otherwise the states themselves should provide their own local laws in regard to drugs. So, for example, I don't really care if California legalizes marijuana, as long as its grown there and used there. I think its a stupid idea, but they can do as they please.
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:
But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
No, not really. See my first post for details on how the brain is not a computer. You just abstract it like that. But since you're so married to the idea, why don't you explain how thinking of the brain as a computer enhances our understanding to a degree that warrants engaging with it on that level instead of with what the brain really works on - neurons, plasticity, etc.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Such as?
I have degrees in biochemistry and computer science, and I'm about halfway through my MD now.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
why don't you explain how thinking of the brain as a computer enhances our understanding to a degree that warrants engaging with it on that level instead of with what the brain really works on - neurons, plasticity, etc.
Anything that computes is, by definition, a computer. The mechanical adding machines that used to be so common back in the day were computers. A fly's brain is a computer. I would say that it enhances our understanding by first establishing the fundamental purpose of the thing we are trying to understand.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have degrees in biochemistry and computer science, and I'm about halfway through my MD now.
Congratulations. You have taken the path I turned off of.
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.
-
Oakman wrote:
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed.
:rolleyes: Neither opiates or cocaine played a significant role in maintaining American civilization at any time in our history. To suggest that it was is yet another historic absurdity on your part. Now, if you were to argue tha alcohol played such a role, I suppose I would have to consider that point. But there is simply no evidence of large scale general dependency by the population on the drugs you mention. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
I'm not an avid supporter of the current drug laws if that is what you are referring to. I think the federal government has a role to play in keeping drugs from entering the country and from moving across state borders, but otherwise the states themselves should provide their own local laws in regard to drugs. So, for example, I don't really care if California legalizes marijuana, as long as its grown there and used there. I think its a stupid idea, but they can do as they please.
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:
Neither opiates or cocaine played a significant role in maintaining American civilization at any time in our history
I never said they did. I said their use was prevalent during the 19th century. You not only cannot dispute this fact, you won't even address it head on. Any claims about drugs supporting civilization come only from you. I think the idea is absurd.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the federal government has a role to play in keeping drugs from entering the country and from moving across state borders
Why should South Carolinian taxes go to pay to keep drugs out of Texas or from entering your state via Pennsylvania? Screw that. If you and your neighbors think that drugs are illegal, hire your own narcs and don't expect me or mine to pay for them. You want sovereignty, at least have the balls to stop asking for foreign aid. It's time you statists stop expecting everyone else to pay for you. Does Jeffersonianism include being a nanny now - or have you just not thought things through?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's still not particularly good evidence of your very strong assertion.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, its damned strong evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
For example, for thousands of years it was believed that time transcended everything, that one second was one second no matter who you are or what you're doing. Is civilisation dependent on this incorrect belief?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Obviously, the human perception of time has been entirely adequate for the purposes of maintaining civilization.
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:
Obviously, the human perception of time has been entirely adequate for the purposes of maintaining civilization.
That's like saying that Newtonian physics is entirely adequate.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
s'dosh fow l ndin eeewing..
Taking drugs in the middle of the day, are you? I guess the kid pwned your ass.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
why don't you explain how thinking of the brain as a computer enhances our understanding to a degree that warrants engaging with it on that level instead of with what the brain really works on - neurons, plasticity, etc.
Anything that computes is, by definition, a computer. The mechanical adding machines that used to be so common back in the day were computers. A fly's brain is a computer. I would say that it enhances our understanding by first establishing the fundamental purpose of the thing we are trying to understand.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have degrees in biochemistry and computer science, and I'm about halfway through my MD now.
Congratulations. You have taken the path I turned off of.
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:
Anything that computes is, by definition, a computer
Is that all you've got?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You have taken the path I turned off of.
Pity. I think there's more job security in being an MD than in selling car parts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anything that computes is, by definition, a computer
Is that all you've got?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You have taken the path I turned off of.
Pity. I think there's more job security in being an MD than in selling car parts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Is that all you've got?
Thats the only point I was trying to make.
Oakman wrote:
Pity. I think there's more job security in being an MD than in selling car parts.
Tell me about it... I was just put off by the requirement of going to medical school to pursue the things I was interested in. I didn't give a shit about the liver, I just wanted to study brains. It was more of an engineering interest for me than a medical one. I didn't want to save lives, I just wanted to see if a brain could be reverse engineered so to speak.
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:
Neither opiates or cocaine played a significant role in maintaining American civilization at any time in our history
I never said they did. I said their use was prevalent during the 19th century. You not only cannot dispute this fact, you won't even address it head on. Any claims about drugs supporting civilization come only from you. I think the idea is absurd.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the federal government has a role to play in keeping drugs from entering the country and from moving across state borders
Why should South Carolinian taxes go to pay to keep drugs out of Texas or from entering your state via Pennsylvania? Screw that. If you and your neighbors think that drugs are illegal, hire your own narcs and don't expect me or mine to pay for them. You want sovereignty, at least have the balls to stop asking for foreign aid. It's time you statists stop expecting everyone else to pay for you. Does Jeffersonianism include being a nanny now - or have you just not thought things through?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I said their use was prevalent during the 19th century.
They were not all that prevalent.
Oakman wrote:
Any claims about drugs supporting civilization come only from you.
I wasn't actually referring to the ones you mentioned. I had drugs more associated with scientific research in mind - prozac, ritilin, etc.
Oakman wrote:
Why should South Carolinian taxes go to pay to keep drugs out of Texas or from entering your state via Pennsylvania?
I think the federal borders and interstate commerce are a perfectly constituional concern of the federal government. If there is some nation out there trying to flood our society with drugs, the federal government should damn well do something about it. That is simply war by different means.
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:
Obviously, the human perception of time has been entirely adequate for the purposes of maintaining civilization.
That's like saying that Newtonian physics is entirely adequate.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
That's like saying that Newtonian physics is entirely adequate.
No, actually, it isn't like saying that at all. But, as you bring the point up, considering that human civilization greatly predates an understanding of Newtonian physics obviously Newtonian physics is not a prerequisite for civilization. Rather, civilization is a prerequisite for understanding Newtonian physics.
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.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Philosophy?
Sure. If the philosophy is that civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs.
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.
-
Oakman wrote:
I said their use was prevalent during the 19th century.
They were not all that prevalent.
Oakman wrote:
Any claims about drugs supporting civilization come only from you.
I wasn't actually referring to the ones you mentioned. I had drugs more associated with scientific research in mind - prozac, ritilin, etc.
Oakman wrote:
Why should South Carolinian taxes go to pay to keep drugs out of Texas or from entering your state via Pennsylvania?
I think the federal borders and interstate commerce are a perfectly constituional concern of the federal government. If there is some nation out there trying to flood our society with drugs, the federal government should damn well do something about it. That is simply war by different means.
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:
I think the federal borders and interstate commerce
Once you give the feds the power to regulate "interstate" commerce, you have given them the power to regulate business. Besides, states rights means that California should decide what enters its borders and what doesn't. It most definbitely doesn't mean that the feds will enforce your particular prejudices and opinions and override the will of the people of California. You appear to be hoist by your own petard. The idea that the feds will set up customs houses on every road that crosses a state line boggles the mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If there is some nation out there trying to flood our society with drugs
Sheeee-it. There's enough marijuana grown in California to keep us all stoned every weekend from now on out. Once States Rights becomes paramount, Cali will be growing poppy and hemp everywhere it doesn't grow maryjane. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the folks in New York and Massachusetts ain't gonna contribute a dime towards keeping the drugs out of Ohio, or Indiana, or North Dakota either. Only thing that makes 'em do it now is those damned activist judges on the Supreme Court taking power away fromn the states and giving it to Washington.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs.
True, crowd control is an aspect of civilization. Some manage to be civilized without drugs or religion.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Some manage to be civilized without drugs or religion
Not according to Stan. Only the state enforcement of religous intolerance keep us all from turning into ravening creatures of the night, eager to suck each other's brain out. (Along with sucking on other organs, which he also disaproves of.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
That's like saying that Newtonian physics is entirely adequate.
No, actually, it isn't like saying that at all. But, as you bring the point up, considering that human civilization greatly predates an understanding of Newtonian physics obviously Newtonian physics is not a prerequisite for civilization. Rather, civilization is a prerequisite for understanding Newtonian physics.
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:
civilization is a prerequisite for understanding Newtonian physics
You seem not only to have a firm grasp of the obvious but a great desire to flaunt it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin