Yes, now I know. I could've sworn my domain was registered with Media Temple, however. I transferred it 6 months ago. Taking care of that now.
At any rate, I'm sure we all understand that guilt by association is a gross logical fallacy, and that I in no way endorse the killing of elephants. This must be what it feels like to be a politician...
Would you agree at least that, even if there is a mind, that it requires a brain in order to manifest itself, such that "mind-minus-brain" makes no sense at all?
But this whole "liberty" concept confuses me. Can't we just say it's a bad example because we'd be violating her right to life? Because when we bring liberty into the picture, we are in fact saying that her liberty is more important than the persecutor's liberty. So it's not really liberty that has the final say, but life. And then, even if we say that, its not always the case that violating the right to life is ALWAYS bad (think trolley example). So I think "consequentialism" suffices.
I suppose you'd be in the minority if you found relevance in my specific concerns, or if you found it pertinent to your situation. But I didn't think that should forbid me from posting it.
I can understand why it seems pointless, and I suppose HN was not the best venue.
Consider it my response to people who say "How are you not using ifttt? It's so good!" Well, here's why. It's not completely pointless -- I wanted to figure out how I felt about the service, and now I know. If my comments are useful to others, then great. If it's pointless to you, then that's fine as well.
"Don’t get me wrong, ifttt sounds like an excellent service for those who require it. For what it’s worth, I am not one of those people. At least not at the moment."
I simply separate my RSS feeds into two folders - A list and B list. A list is for independent writers who only post a couple times a day. B list is for news-centric websites. I do not hesitate to simply mark the entire B list as read.
Can't you use the Schrödinger equation to assess the wave function and estimate (roughly) the future position?
Also, just because we don't know exactly where the photon will land doesn't mean photons break the laws of physics. Quantum mechanics are difficult to observe by nature -- that's what the uncertainty principle states: there is no way to observe quantum particles without moving them in hard-to-detect ways. I don't think the uncertainty principle states that quantum particles randomly defy the laws of physics in indeterministic fashion.
Agreed. To say that everything depends on consciousness is somewhat naive. In fact, the things we are "conscious" of are not always accurate representations, whatever that may mean. For example:
"People commonly misreport their own experiences. We don’t even have good insight into how much fun we are having or even whether an experience we are having at a particular moment in time is pleasant or unpleasant. Some examples (among many): being paid a paltry sum to tell another person that the boring and repetitive task in which we have just engaged is fun leads us to think we enjoyed it (Festinger & Carlsmith 1959); observing that we have chosen one item from a range that seems identical leads us to conclude that we have detected differences between them (Nisbett & Wilson 1977). Subjects who experienced arousal caused by an injection of norepinepherine reporting being happy or angry, depending on what cues they’re given (Schachter and Singer 1962), while subjects who exercise prior to encountering an opposite sex confederate of the experimenters rated the confederate more attractive (Allen 1989). We are systematically bad at assessing the causes and the precise character of our experiences. Moreover, there is evidence that our intuitive physics is unreliable. Naïve subjects assume, falsely, that an object that is travelling through a curved tube will continue to follow a curved trajectory when it leaves the tube (McCloskey et al. 1980)." [Source: http://agencyandresponsibility.typepad.com/flickers-of-freed...]
Yes, and tests have shown that it's not just calories. A small non-food gift can have the same affects as glucose. I agree that glucose may be some sort of indicator to the body that it should engage in some tedious task, but it's not the cause.
Of course the brain is affected by non-brain parts of the system. But my point is that, in order for glucose to "replenish" willpower, it should be the case that some task depleted glucose by some significant amount -- hence the need for replenishment.
Does seeing violence around you make you more or less violent -- I can see it going either way, and to be honest, I'm not aware of any research that attempts to answer the question. I guess I can do some digging.
I agree that video games MAY not be good for kids because they may socialize less as a result. However, video games can have positive benefits. Steven Johnson argues that the complexity of modern video games induces a beneficial cognitive workout that's worth paying attention to. Check out his book: http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Bad-Good-You-Actually/dp/15...
The culprit is more likely a child's upbringing, which may have been negatively affected due to television, but not directly caused by television itself.
I understand, but there are plenty of experiences I know I will enjoy with my girlfriend and a few close friends. I plan on traveling the world and seeing great works of art.
I think perhaps I should rephrase that section to sound less extreme. It sounds like I'm sitting there with my eye-twitching, watching every little movement. While I do NOTICE minor changes, I shouldn't say that I notice them ALL, and I certainly do not fixate on them. I'm just the type of person that needs to clean up after someone leaves.
Lol. Well, perhaps I'll reword the conclusion. I suppose it was a bit confusing. I was arguing that a woman's "choice" could be caused/influenced by societal pressure or neurobiology. And either way, to what extent is this a robust "choice"? Personally, I believe that neurobiology is the cause of all our behavior. However, I think it is still worth bringing up the implications of that line of thought. As I said before, there are neurobiological reasons for racism. Of course, these reasons do not JUSTIFY racism, they merely EXPLAIN it. And so, in my conclusion, I wanted to bring up the issue -- "Although we may be able to explain lower pay, either through neurobiology, societal pressure, or otherwise, this does not necessarily justify it."
I mean...there are biological explanations for RACISM. Does that mean racism is tolerable? Of course not. I think I brought up a fair point -- Yes, it may be the case that women are influenced by their neurobiology to choose lower-paying careers. Does that mean we should stop talking about the issue? I don't think so.
The Sexual "Paradox" is the name of a book, one of my sources. Yes, to nitpick, it is not a true paradox. The "paradox" Susan Pinker refers to is the fact that women perform better than men in school, and yet end up in lower-paying careers. It's more a seeming contradiction than a true paradox, you are correct.
I didn't know so many people would have a problem with that sentence. I thought it was clear that I was merely playing devil's advocate. It's not horrible reasoning. It's merely a question that I thought should be raised.
It's not silly. I brought up that point out of fairness. I, personally, do not believe that a choice is unfair if it is influenced by our neurobiology. I am a materialist and determinist.