2:36 am CST, Thursday January 8th, 2010, his 914th published video below-
http://www.videosift.com/video/How-To-Dance-Very-Good

Congratulations man, long and hard, soft n' squishy.

cartilage (and all kinds of other crap) is what McDonalds chicken nuggets are made from. Yes it is edible, but the reason I don't eat cartilage is not because of what it's made from, but because of the texture. I agree with sme4r, I'm not gonna chomp on something that feels like a squishy rock. Call me wasteful...

Oh, and I don't eat chicken feet either.

My name is Laura. I have a little boy named Brennan who is just over a month old. My boyfriend and I have been together for two years come November. We work fast!

I have a wonderful kitty named Gojira who is part lynx and has a very squishy nub tail--everyone asks when he lost the rest of his tail, but he never had a long tail to begin with! He's the light of my life and I consider him my first born son. Yeah, I know. I'm cat lady material. I also have a part husky, part boxer dog named Stanley Cup. Yes, we are hockey fans! My boyfriend has limited the amount of pets I can have or else I'd fill the house with reptiles and rescued animals. I had an opossum who killed himself. He crawled into the back of my mini-fridge. I've also had a raccoon. I've had a chipmunk. I've had bunnies, snakes, guinea pigs, hamsters, geckos, lizards of many creeds and colors, birds, you name it! I've tried to save so many birds and rodents who my parent's cats mangled. I feed all the stray animals in my neighborhood, including coyotes, to the chagrin of my neighbors. >:]

I love love LOVE to read.

I live in Indianapolis, Indiana. Not a bad town by any means. Just boring. But clean! I live on the far east side at the edge of the town, where cornfields and countryside begin.

I have a deep, abiding love of video games. I play WoW, although my raid members are upset with me because I haven't logged on since my son was born. Hard to commit when you have a little human completely dependent on you.

I work for my mother, who owns an insurance agency. I do everything I can to keep her organized.

I can't think of anything else to add, so that sums it up!

Sorry it took so long to respond, I had a busy weekend.

They are not simple probabilistic events, and they are operating off the same basic principles, that does not mean that systems do not have qualities which their component parts lack.

Does a piston have the capacity to convert petrol into kinetic energy? Does an internal combustion engine have this capacity? Which part of the engine imbues it with this power?

Systems are qualitatively different from their component parts, and some sets of systems, such as systems which decide, are qualitatively different from systems which don't

I'm going to need a definition of "decide" I suppose. It seems like you are dancing around these squishy intuitive concepts instead of having a specific physical distinction to point out. The amoeboid is composed of a lipid bilayer membrane riddled with intricate protein micro-machines that detect changes in the environment, and behaviorally compensate. To discount the intricacy of the mechanisms of genetic expression and chemical signaling that exist even in the simplest of eukaryotic organism is foolish IMHO. Many of the modern models of genetic expression, and compensation for environmental factors look strikingly similar to the connectionist network models of the brain. The computations are similar in the abstract.


You are anthropomorphizing the mold, it does move, this motion increases its chances of finding food, it survives/reproduces. It in no way displays evidence of doing any of this "in order" to accomplish some goal. If you want to suggest that evolution, as a system, displays intelligence, by selecting molds which move in certain ways, I would be willing to acknowledge that intelligence, not a consciousness, but an intelligence.

Well, more likely I'm moldopomorphizing us. What goals do we have that are ultimately distinct from survival, reproduction, and the general continuity of our species? Even something as seemingly unrelated as making music, or art could be cast as some sort of mating ritual. When you somehow separate our behavior from the rest of life on Earth it's as though you want to draw a barrier between us and them. You want to somehow separate us from the natural order. I hate to break it to you, but it just isn't so. We are just demonstrate the spatial heterogeneity of the second law of thermodynamics.


Why is context necessary for experience? What do you experience in infinitesimal time? Why should we posit some sort of experience which is entirely distinct from the type we claim to have?

I experience the moment. In fact, that's all I'm ever experiencing, although my sensation of it may run a little behind. I never experience my memory, I merely compare my experience to memory. Further, what I'm suggesting is not entirely distinct from any experience we claim to have. Some autistic individuals, for instance, report an extremely chaotic existence, in which causal models can't be formed as sensory modalities are not unified in the same way as ours. They are experienced as independent inputs, not reflective of a coherent physical world. Still, they experience it.

Physical laws are not obeyed, they are enforced. electron movements are completely deterministic, like billiard balls, they roll down hill, they don't decide if/when to do so.

Things can not be enforced without an enforcer. Further, as you've conceded the determinism of our brains, again, how are we not passively allowing the laws of nature to push us around? What exactly are we deciding?


I don't believe that you are claiming that electrons have tiny field sensors which feed into a neural network which analyzes them for patterns and then attributes meaning to them by comparing them to earlier similar sensation patterns. Perhaps you can state this more clearly.

No, I believe that by some other physical mechanism, likely involving quarks and particle physics that I admittedly have a poor understanding of, the electron receives information from not immediately proximal locations, and physically displaces itself to a location with more desirable properties given its current energy state. I don't see how that's different than cuddling up to a warm fire.


You seem to be positing that the structure of the universe is not topological, but that it is instead the consequence of 10^80 atoms all working on concert to decide what the laws of the universe are at this moment. If this is your thesis I am inclined to ask on what basis you think it is even vaguely likely that they would came to a consensus, such as they must to allow the functioning of a universe like ours.

Something like that , although I still don't like the word decide. I don't necessarily think they do come to a consensus. It's just that, as with an attractor network, or similar guaranteed convergence dynamical systems, certain macroscopic states are just more likely than others, despite chaos at the subordinate level. The reason I'd rather drop the word decide is because I don't necessarily want to open the door to something like free will. To cast it in a "God" metaphor, I imagine more of an omniscient God, than an omnipotent God.


Please provide some basis to believe that there is a phenomenal experience.

I can't other than to refer you to what I presume you to have. I could suggest focussing on your breathing, or what have you. I can point you towards literature showing that people that claim to focus on their consciousness can perform physical feats not previous considered possible (for instance monks rewriting the books on the physical tolerance of the human body to cold). Otherwise, I can't. I will say this, however, I take it to be the atomic element of inductive reason. The natural "laws" you are taking as primary are secondary. There is a simple reason for this as Alfred North Whitehead pointed out. If suddenly we were to observe all bits of matter floating away from one another, and were to confirm we were not hallucinating, and perhaps have the experience corroborated by our colleagues, it would not be the experience which was wrong, it would be the laws of nature. Experience has primacy. Matter is merely the logical consequence of applying induction to our particular set of shared experiences.


And that will persist as long as we are not talking about anything. You say "X exists". I say "What is X?". You say "You can't disprove X". And here we are talking about nothing.

I told you, in the best english I can, what X is. It's the qualia of phenomenal experience. Now I can't provide you with direct evidence for it, but I can tell you that nearly everyone I talk to has some sense of what I mean.


You must be using an alternate form of the word "believe". How can someone believe something, and simultaneously be completely unwilling to assert that it is a fact?

I take the Bayesian sense of the word. All probabilities are subjective degrees of belief. I adopt this degree of belief based on anecdotal experience and generalizations therein. None of this would be accepted as evidence by any reviewer, nor should it, and thus I wouldn't want to risk my credibility by asserting it as fact. I can believe some hypotheses to be more likely than others on the basis of no evidence, and in fact do all the time. That's how I, and all other scientists, decide what experiment to run next. I should not, however, expect you to believe me a priori, as you may operate on different axioms, and draw from different anecdotal experience. Thus, I would not feel compelled to assert my beliefs as fact, other than in so far as they are, in fact, my beliefs.

Your belief clearly predicts that it must be possible, in a universe like ours, for thinking to take place without form. Information processing is a counter-entropic process, it requires energy, and stateful energy(matter) to consolidate referable information. These energetic events would be completely detectable by normal physical means. Theism,spiritualism, or any supernatural claims about disembodied entities contradict conservation of energy, and so can not be accurately described as "more likely than not" or "consistent with the observable universe".

I didn't say thinking. I said consciousness. For a living I model the human visual system with information theoretic models. So yes, I agree, "thinking" whatever the hell that means, is a counter-entropic process (at least in some squishy Gibbs sense, as there is no such thing as a "counter-entropic process"). In fact, it is exactly this which I believe imbues our consciousness with access to such an intricate experiential stream. The ability of our nervous system to transmit information about quantum phenomena at a distance with so little lost to noise is absolutely astonishing, and shouldn't be diminished. This doesn't give me any more reason to presume I should have this "experience", or "stream of consciousness", or whatever you want to call it. I just gives a reason for that particular pattern of stimulus-response.

The consciousness I presume to exist in a rock, for instance, would be deprived of this sort of access. It is likely more fragmented, and is only able to respond to very basic stimuli, such as proximal forces, temperature, etc. It would be a boring consciousness, but I presume it to be conscious all the same.

The ability to respond to stimuli is an observable trait, consciousness is the attribute of possessing this trait to a greater or lesser extent. Some would, of course, refer to internal narrative, but we should be clear that internal narrative is, almost certainly, untrue and constructed after the fact. Based on what we know from studies about the reliability of internal narrative,I would be disinclined to trust it in addressing this question.

So the billiard ball responding to the applied force is conscious? I agree!

You can't elevate the level of a debate that is not taking place. Theists make assertions, some people point out how they are contradicted by the available evidence, theists move goal posts, lather, rinse, repeat. We have not had a real debate for a very long time, and as long as the goal post is still on the move, don't expect one.

What available evidence am I contradicting?

Octopi have doughnut shaped brains that are around their mid-sections. I don't know how squishy they are but it is a mis-conception that the large bulbous part at the "head" contains the brain. That part actually more akin to our torso area.

http://tolweb.org/accessory/Cephalopod_Brain_Terminology?acc_id=1944

Should really be in *long too ... damn my squishy lack of power.

I guess this was a cool video. But after watching these two videos, it's obvious that this guy went through a pussy version of waterboarding.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-is-Waterboarded
http://www.videosift.com/video/Playboy-Bets-He-Can-Take-15s-of-Waterboarding

This guy didn't even have his mouth covered! When Christopher Hitchens tried gasp for breath, he had a wet towel smothering him. Mancow seemed to be lying flat and just tilting his head back. I have no idea why they were concerned with elevating his feet. Not to mention, he was in a studio holding a squishy stress cow being waterboarded by a guy that admits he's not a professional.

The 100-Day Assault on America

by Larry Elder

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

*sigh*
*dead.

I'm a Canuck, so I can't access hulu.com

A Yank is welcome to go here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/23972/the-simpsons-all-syrup-super-squishy-bender

and retrieve the embed code? You'll get a power point, and a feeling of self-worth.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/23972/the-simpsons-all-syrup-super-squishy-bender

I'm in Canada, so I can't access the embed code - anyone want to check & provide?

Why is it that every shooter since System Shock 2 needs to have a "squishy" level where you're inside the guts of some huge creature?

Aww... the poor sphere got all squishied.

i agree. i saw the show in london with .. whats his name.. michael ball? pudgy squishy cheeks from the original les miserables cast. the woman who did this part was awesome.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Thanks, Lavoll. That's one of my favorite songs, ever.

In reply to this comment by lavoll:
*promote

Well, first thing get rid of those big squishy tires because they have to have very high rolling resistance, and replace them with narrow 27" bike rims with 110psi in the tires, and that chassis looks a little on the heavy side too. Then mount racks on the sides so you and your honey can "run" to the grocery store. Make sure it has some kind of gear system to account for hills. There's a short scene where the guy is pacing around the machine looking winded on flat ground.

"The time to invest is now". Not quite.