It's frustrating to me that I seem unable to form strong opinions on many things. Like the current discussion of porn on the sift. I have an opinion, but I don't really care that much. It all just gets funnelled into that "You're for censorship/You're degrading the site" binary thing.

And downvotes - it's like using your horn in a car: it's kind of there for emergencies, but it's never really used in that context. Zappa's right - people downvote just because they disagree with you on a subject, not because you said anything inappropriate. I mean seriously - why downvote a comedy clip just because you didn't find it funny? But people do it.

But... I just don't care that much.

Sigh.

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

I have to say that however reluctant I was to participate in one of the many public abortion debates that recur continually without really going anywhere, but felt it would be indecent to allow that discussion to unfold without some token objection raised against common delusions, I'm even more reluctant to talk one-on-one where there's still less opportunity for progress.

One reason these kind of debates, not just on abortion but any political or social topic, don't advance is that they concern questions of applied ethics that really belong very late in our philosophical development. It's as futile for adherents of varying ethical theories to clash on single issues as it is for travellers to row at a crossroads about which way they should go when they all set off from different places, following wildly differing maps, with compasses that all point in different directions. Why not agree which way is north first?

There's so much metaphysical and epistemological groundwork to be done before a sound consensus can be reached. I say 'sound' because with broadly binary questions there will appear to be a lot more agreement than there really is.

So rather than go on a trip with you I'd prefer to tell you where to start. You have to resolve subjectivity (you say that consciousness is "illusive and scarcely understood" - ultimately that's true of everything, which is the fundamental problem; I did give you a definition, in fact - perception and understanding, cognition and identity) and choose the fewest and most basic axioms on which to construct a nominally objective philosophy. That's where the debate belongs; what should those axioms be and what proceeds directly from them?

If you want me to give you a way to distinguish between mind and not-mind, the ability of a candidate to engage with that process would be a pretty good indication.

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
I wanted to continue this discussion, but it's going off in a different direction, so I figured I'd bring it here onto your home turf. You've obviously traveled this road before, but I'm coming along for the ride this time. (Road trip!)

We'll start here and see where this takes us: What's your reasoning for saying that a baby (or someone with a cognitive disability, or hell, an animal) is not Mind? I know where I'd like this to go, but I'll let you drive.

>> ^harlequinn:

>> ^raverman:
"It's like playing a musical instrument, except if you get the chords wrong the crowd will think less of your skills as a musician.">> ^PancakeMaster:
It's like a musical game of memory, except if you forget a block live a few hundred youngsters will boo you.


There are no chords to get wrong. The chord is programmed into one button.
This is an 8 x 8 grid of binary switches. Pressing a button activates a sample.
Compare to a piano with 88 keys, each key has variable volume depending on how hard you press it. Plus three pedals (soft, sustain, and sostenuto). You actually have to play the melody and accompanying chords.
I wouldn't call him a musician. Just like I don't call DJs musicians.


If he had made this soundtrack without using the launchpad, using DAW software and various plugins and samples, that somehow is more "musician"y than using a 64 key launchpad with samples that he probably prepared himself, even though the end result is the same? Maybe composers aren't musicians? Or are you saying this isn't music?

And, you must not think a person playing a small organ is a musician, since it has fewer keys than a piano, and each key is a binary switch that turns on and off the sound of the pipe.

>> ^raverman:

"It's like playing a musical instrument, except if you get the chords wrong the crowd will think less of your skills as a musician.">> ^PancakeMaster:
It's like a musical game of memory, except if you forget a block live a few hundred youngsters will boo you.



There are no chords to get wrong. The chord is programmed into one button.

This is an 8 x 8 grid of binary switches. Pressing a button activates a sample.

Compare to a piano with 88 keys, each key has variable volume depending on how hard you press it. Plus three pedals (soft, sustain, and sostenuto). You actually have to play the melody and accompanying chords.

I wouldn't call him a musician. Just like I don't call DJs musicians.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
@EvilDeathBee "reaching" ain't there yet. Still looks like a cartoon to me (probably bc I play too many games). And nomatter how good it gets, it will always look like the actors are talking to/interacting with empty air. Say what you will about animatronics and puppets but meeting a puppet's eyes is never a problem for actors.

Completely disagree. Did you seriously think Prometheus looked "cartoony"? Also, the CGI Yoda in the Blu-Ray Episode 1 was so much better than the rubbish puppet from the theatrical release (regardless of how shit the film is). No matter how good a puppet or animatronic is, it will always be limited in what it can do and especially how it animates.
And if and actor has trouble meeting the eyes of a digital character, that's poor setup, poor direction, poor editing and even poor acting. As I said, it's knowing when to use CGI and when to use puppets/animatronics/models. All can be blended to work well together, depends on the shot.

Ok, so the Yoda puppet was pretty shit, but I think I still prefer it to the CG one. Whether something is believable seems pretty binary to me. Its not as if either version really does a good job of hiding the man behind the curtain. Some CG I am totally fooled by. Backdrops, a lot of special effects but when it comes to something organic, something thats going to be the focus of the camera CG never really holds up. I've seen tech demos of CG faces, and tbh, I can't really tell the difference. I think the problem often is blending this CG in with the rest of the scene. Our brains seem very good at detecting inconsistency in lighting etc, too often CG elements really seem painted on top and it spoils the illusion. A lot of animatronic stuff matches CG in terms of its animation, but because its actually in the scene it never jumps out at you.

But hey, maybe one day our films will be made entirely in front of bluescreens. Pehraps the performers won't even have to wear makeup or costume, it'll all be superimposed on afterwards. For the moment I still think animatronics has the edge in realism.

Yeah, they got a majority of it right, so I'll give that minor flub to them. Also, glad to see Linux got an appearance.
>> ^AeroMechanical:

>> ^lucky760:
Awesome, except "I'm running C++" which doesn't make sense, strictly speaking. (You can run binary code compiled from C++ source code, but you can't run C++ itself.)

You could run a compiler, which I believe would qualify as "running C++" if only on a technicality.

>> ^lucky760:

Awesome, except "I'm running C++" which doesn't make sense, strictly speaking. (You can run binary code compiled from C++ source code, but you can't run C++ itself.)


You could run a compiler, which I believe would qualify as "running C++" if only on a technicality.

Awesome, except "I'm running C++" which doesn't make sense, strictly speaking. (You can run binary code compiled from C++ source code, but you can't run C++ itself.)

I would not pray what you have suggested. For one, I do not need a lord or savior. Two, the god that you believe in should know exactly what it would take to prove its existence and unless those rigorous conditions are met, I will maintain my doubt.

Personal revelation, whether singular or continuous, is not, for me, a good measure of whether or not I should believe something. Demonstrable, reproducible, externally verifiable, logically sound, and consistency with what we can/do know about reality are, among others, the basis of what it takes for me to believe something. The god of the bible, as well as all supernatural claims, are none of those so therefore I cannot believe in its existence.

That kind of prayer is not meaningful investigation and my view is that of doubt and skepticism. “I don’t know” is a null position, a “0” in binary, and because it makes no claims to knowledge, my position does not require falsification. “I do not believe” and “I don’t know” is not a claim to knowledge. Claims to knowledge are what require a path to falsification.

If you were truly agnostic, you couldn’t have had a claim that would have been falsified since, as an agnostic, you would admitted that you do not know.

>> ^shinyblurry:

As a former agnostic, I was perfectly fine with the answer "I don't know". That was never a scary thing to me. At the time, I simply did not have enough information to say either way. I wasn't going to go beyond what I felt was possible to understand given our subjective bias. I only changed my mind when I received revelation of Gods existence. Neither was it a single revelation that I base my belief on, rather it is actually a daily revelation. I could no more deny Gods existence than my own reflection in the mirror. To know God is to know Him personally, and to know Him personally means that He is personally involved in the intimate details of your life.
My question to you is, are you willing to falsify your viewpoint? I already had mine falsified, which is why I became a Christian. I don't expect you to accept my personal testimony as absolute proof of anything. You can investigate the claim for yourself, by asking Jesus to come into your life as Lord and Savior. You can falsify your view this way:
Pray something like..Jesus, I don't know if you're there or not, but if you are there, I want to know you. If you let me know you are there, I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior. Thank you God. Amen.
Are you willing to do that?
>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

Normal: n. The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Homosexuality is not the average sexual orientation. I don't see how that's debatable.

I don't like the video because it still preaches binary classifications. I think that's kind of dumb. Even among the queer strict "homosexuality" is not normal.

Cool stuff!

I like binary counting with fingers, but mostly because you get to give people the ol' double deuce if you count to 132.

*dead:

"'2002 BBC Horizon : The Day ...'
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:

* Binary Research Institute
* Binary Research Institute
* Binary Research Institute ..."

Sorry about the slowness of my reply, been tied up more than usual at work.
>> ^jonny:

I think this comes down to two interrelated disagreements. First, I view censorship, like most tools, as morally neutral. It can be used morally (e.g., preventing the dissemination of information on how to design biological weapons) or immorally (e.g., preventing the dissemination of information on government corruption). The immorality of an act of censorship is based on what the information is, why its censored, who is censored, and the consequences for circumventing the censorship.

Ahh, a censorship consequentialist! My own moral reasoning on the subject is roughly similar -- I think in certain cases, the ends justify the means when it comes to censorship. But, I don't think the act of censorship starts as morally neutral. It's a really bad thing, and you better have a damn good case for why the benefits of doing it outweigh the harm of doing it in the first place.

>> ^jonny:
Second, in this case, I don't think Google is in a position to use censorship in an immoral way. This is what I mean by "effective" censorship. If circumventing the censorship requires little or no effort, and there are no real consequences for doing so, it can hardly be called "effective", can it?

And my point is that this is not some binary choice, but a sliding scale. China's power to censor isn't absolute, it's just very high. On the other hand, Google's power to censor its users is fairly mild, but not nonexistant.

In an earlier post, you said this:>> ^jonny:

The only difference I can see is that you are asserting a right not to free speech but a big audience.
Which I take to mean that you agree that being booted off Youtube is not 100% consequence-free -- it means your speech is likely to reach fewer people thanks to Google's actions.

Given that Google's reasoning here was ostensibly to just protect religious leaders from being offended, the ends here definitely don't justify the means: Google was doing something immoral.

Again, I don't see moral vs. immoral as being some sort of all-or-nothing binary choice -- China's actions are way, way worse, but they're only different by a matter of degree, not because it's categorically different from what Google was (allegedly) doing.

I think you may have miscoded, shouldn't that be 4E 45 52 44 59
In reply to this comment by radx:
That is just 41 57 45 53 4F 4D 45.