benpbenp

You may be surprised to learn there was debate on this topic from at least the high middle ages. A quick Google search found this write up, which seems to be a pretty good summary.

http://vox-nova.com/2009/10/10/on-multiple-worlds-and-multip...

EDIT: This is quite good too:

http://www.unav.es/cryf/extraterrestriallife.html

Doesn't Monroe with no first name mean James Monroe? Because of this I was really trying hard to see the president, all the more confused because I am nearsighted.

Sorry to nitpick, but I think this is a good thing to know. Apocryphal means "of doubtful authenticity", not mythical or false, which is the how you seem to be using it. The story is clearly apocryphal.

And the download is here: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/info/downloads/Default.htm...

In middle school one day there was a loudspeaker announcement that all teachers were to stay after school for "the special meeting, I repeat, the special meeting." It was so obvious to everyone that this was a coded message and we got it out of the Spanish teacher pretty quickly that this meant there had been a bomb threat.

An interesting addition to that point is the fact that it's the unique combination of little sun + arable land that set the stage for whiteness to develop in northern Europe. Take northern Native Americans-- they had little sun but also couldn't grow grains and so got plenty of vitamin D through their meat-only diet. There was an article here on HN about this some time ago.

I personally do not assume that consciousness only exists where it is observable. I am merely interested in the fact that it is unobservable-- and in how that makes it weird and different. Do you agree with me on this point?

Sorry I forgot the qualification: excepting one's own experience of one's own consciousness. That was silly.

What makes it weird and different from physical phenomena is the fact that it is not generally observable, even though it is posited to exist for all people.

Or do you disagree even with that? If you do: I don't just mean that it doesn't emit visible light. I mean it doesn't emit anything. Consciousness is just the fact that the universe exists from a perspective. It is not an object, "out there", "in the world", but something only experienced by each consciousness for itself. The mere fact that we could create a perfectly convincing AI and then still have doubts about whether there really is "anything in there" is a result of the fact that consciousness is unobservable. Does that explain well enough what I mean?

It's not that there are "data" to support the idea, but there is the fact that consciousness is unobservable. That is weird and different from all other physical phenomena, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I agree -- my point was merely that in any case, it wouldn't make sense to argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away freedoms, since that is necessarily what any bill (with a few trivial exceptions) must do. (Of course you can argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away some freedom in particular, given, for example, that such freedom has been enshrined in a founding document, &c., &c.)

> Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this.

Isn't the point of all legislation to restrict people's free will in one way or another? (Just a quibble; I realize this statement is not central to your comment.)

Yes, and inflection is the general case which includes declension and conjugation. It's unfortunate that most people are only aware of the other meaning of inflection, having to do with tone of voice.

> Facebook’s self serve ad business is exploding, say our sources, and may be significantly more robust than even the most favorable third party forecasts predict.

Is it just me or is this a silly, meaningless sentence. Are you predicting it is more robust? Then that makes you the most favorable third party. If not, and if you have no evidence to offer, then why mention this mere possibility?

In general, this is an invalid inference. Consider the heap paradox and the continuum fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

The problem with the Noble Savage myth is that it is a ridiculous romanticization, much akin to the myth of the "simple, merry country folk." The idea in itself doesn't have anything to do with the race of the savages in question.

Honest question: how do you know this?

Your comment reminded me of Ben Franklin's case for older women. http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/51-fra.html

Or do they just know better the effort required to become a master at kung fu?

I think the fact that the argument is equally applicable to the human brain gets at the heart of the general problem of consciousness, of which AI is just a special case. Consciousness is not an observable phenomenon (excepting one's experience of one's own consciousness), so it seems unlikely to me that we can ever understand it in terms of observable phenomena-- i.e. as a function/result of things like neurons or transistors.

Yes. While I understand the point of view of the article, I can also see a corporation just as a group of persons acting in concert. Each one of these persons has natural rights, so why can't they exercise these rights in concert?

Linux too!

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/w00t.html

I hope they patented.