They ask part way through if she'll ever be held up there with the greats, and I say it right now SHE BETTER BE... those shots are just stunning, really beautifully composed, really capturing people, wonderful lighting, framing... man, they are some truly awesome photos.

That sort of street photography where she gets her subjects to be looking at her is the sort I wish I could do, but do not have the personality that allows me to photograph people I don't know as I'm always self concious of what they think I'm doing... so I'm left with taking distant shots only... hence why I have to look on with envy at those who can do street photography.

1:38 was actually pretty accurate.

But remember kids, trying to break laminated safety glass with your head can lead to severe concussion, loss of conciousness and/or a cracked skull. Unless you're wearing a superhero suit of course, then you can just get up and continue fighting the bad guy!

I'm conflicted between voting this video up or down.

Up is for the family who seemed to enjoy themselves while they got their kids to move and spend some time doing things as a family helping each other out.

Down for the title which is grossly misleading IMHO.

If you can't make a fool out of yourself then someone else will...
I mean if you are so self-concious of how you look when you play a game you need to sort out your priorities...

That story about the kid in the ice, I was six, and still remember seeing him regain conciousness on the news.

Very interesting

I'll try to approach this from another angle.

I know that I am 'aware'. That is, not only do I behave as though I was a concious being with self-awareness, I am indeed aware of what's going on. I don't know, however, whether any of you guys are. You certainly behave like it, but there is no way to know for sure.

However, there is no reason to believe otherwise. From an objective point of view, there is nothing about any other human being that is fundamentally different from me, therefore I have no reason to believe that any other human being is not 'aware', just like me.

Now, here's a thought experiment: Make a brain in a vat. Take a live person, somehow extract his brain from his body without killing the poor guy, and place it in a vat. Attach artificial sensory organs and life-support systems, such that all the information that flowed between the brain and the body now flows between the brain and an artificial machine. In the traditional philosophical experiment, the person shouldn't notice any difference, but that's not really important for my purposes. The important thing is that he can experience the outside world.

Is there any reason to doubt his awareness now? I can't see any.

Now continue to mess with our poor victim. Replace his prefrontal cortex with an equivalent ANN (Artificial Neural Network), made out of electronics. Whether or not that's possible, here's the next step:
Abandon the vat and simulate the entire configuration on a computer.

Now we have an ensemble of electronics instead of an ensemble of neurons. Still, the guy's behaviour is essentially the same. The objective facts can be correlated with the facts about the original person. He still has a prefrontal cortex, it just exists in computer memory instead of in a real configuration of neurons.

I still can't find any reason to doubt whether this person is aware. This seems to demonstrate that it's not the 'stuff' you're made of that's important; it's the abstract configurations between the functional units, no matter how the units themselves are manifested in reality. And that seems to argue against any important ontological difference between people and other things.

"we are under siege from feckless, moronic, feral youths who engage in low levels of criminality (and the occasional high profile case) with near impunity."

I figured that all the rednecks in this country had to come from somewhere.

Hearing about an innocent girl beaten to death like this makes me angry enough to reciprocate their behavior on them.

It makes me want to smash their faces into 10 thousand tiny broken shattered pieces.

I feel less inclined to try to do so however, as I've seen a video of someone being murdered by actually having their face smashed and I must say: it's really not the great idea that it sounds like.

I don't think things would have been any different in this case, but watching that video of the Russian teens slamming a heavy wrench into the face of a helpless old man ought to de-stomach most people to such notions.

Especially during the part where he regains conciousness and tries to shake his head, completely unaware of what's going on, as his battered broken face bleeds down and squirts out a pale pinkish arterial spray.

In reply to this comment by Jesus_Freak:
^acidSpine:

Before you deconstruct what my religion says, the argument I'm putting forward as asking about YOUR religion. No matter how advanced or far-reaching your scientific theories, how do you get around the necessity of supernatural origin in the creation of matter, time, and energy itself?

Hi Jesus_Freak

First of all, religion is dogma. I follow no dogma therefore I have no religion.

The concept of an omnipotent conciousness has ever been raised in a scientific sense so science really has no need to "get around" it.

I don't have an explanation for how spacetime, matter and energy came to be but neither do you if this is it:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Have a nice day.

>> ^Sagemind:
They throw science terms around like frisbees, but they are creating fiction on the back of true science.

Fiction is all it is, true. Trouble is, they don't label it as such.

Hi enoch. Please don't take downvotes personally. I really enjoy your commentary and sifting, so when I downvoted your quantum video I gave some love to your queues. The reason I downvoted the video was because I strongly mislike misrepresentations of science, unless it's done for comedic effect that is. I think my brother sums up my reasons:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Quantum-physics-and-conciousness#comment-777386

No hard feelings?

^Oh please, spare me this same old tripe about close-minded scientists. We attack this shameless stealing of quantum mechanical jargon for new age purposes not because it challenges our authority(*), but because it only serves to spread misinformation about a field that is immensly important for your everyday life. The one who is close-minded is not the one who demands falsifiable hypotheses and evidence to accept something as true, but rather the one who accepts any sufficiently advanced obfuspeak without checking the claims or even verifying whether the claims are internally consistent, re http://www.videosift.com/video/Open-mindedness .

I apologize if I sound overly aggressive here, but I am very tired of being labeled close-minded and cold just for saving my wonder for real physical phenomena, as I have explained here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Dr-Quantum-Visits-a-2-Dimensional-World#comment-716269

(*)And what authority would that be really? All scientists I've ever met are perfectly happy to slave away in their laboratory and/or office just for the thrill of discovery, and don't care to go around asserting their non-selflabeled intellectual superiority to all and everything.


>> ^MycroftHomlz:
having taking 8 courses in quantum mechanics I assure you this is bullshit.

Ditto. And throwing out buzzwords from quantum physics does not grant you status as science, hence *nochannel *philosophy *cinema *controversy

Tags for this video have been changed from 'quantum physics, conciousness, enlightenment, science, what the bleep do we know' to 'quantum physics, consciousness, enlightenment, science, what the bleep do we know' - edited by EndAll

can an entire administrative body of humans actually have a collective concious that can make decisions?

the magic 8-ball says: NO STFU


who is "us" and why is diminishing "our" numbers a bad thing, sen? white people? uh oh!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'quantum physics, conciousness, enlightenment, science, kaballistic' to 'quantum physics, conciousness, enlightenment, science, what the bleep do we know' - edited by MycroftHomlz

>> ^charliem:
This video is an excerpt from a psudeo-science bullshit film, where the writers are trying to somehow mesh actual physics with some meta-physical mind-controlling spirituallity garbage to change the outcome of the universe.
Total bunk science, its just as crazy as scientology, only leaning quite heavily on existing science to try to push its point across.
It would be nice if just thinking could change the universe, but it has zero basis in any established scientific journal. Dont let the real confusing, real science get in the way of the garbage this video is trying to push.


What he said...

me too.thats why i tagged it kaballistic,many parallels.in addition many of carl jung and R.D laing's work refer to the randomness quotient.
quantum theory fascinates me,the applicable math i find impossible,but the theory part absolutely rivets me to my seat.
and in all honesty,how much do we REALLY know?
einstein proved that time is relative and there is no travel faster than light,but BECAUSE of E=MC(2) quantum physics was born,and BOOM...
seems there can be travel faster than light,but only in theory.
ah...time travel..NEAT.
hell,quantum mechanics gave us the very computer's we are playing on.
thanks for the vote sir schmawy =)
In reply to this comment by schmawy:
I'll vote for it too, because it's intriguing. Although if any of this were true, science would have to eat itself.