>> ^qualm:
MilkmanDan: "There's no way to oppose a tyrannical corporation? What happened to getting your goods or services from a competing corporation that offers a better product, fewer restrictions, or better service; or more cynically how about a competing corporation that is only better in that it is less tyrannical than another option?"
^Yes, that's brilliant. Fight TyrannicalCorporation-A by throwing your support behind TyrannicalCorporation-B. This method also works at election time!


I detect sarcasm, but that's the general idea, yes. Particularly if TyrannicalCorporation-B is at least slightly less tyrannical than A. If enough people give a damn and follow suit, it encourages A to recognize that they are losing customers/profits to B due to tyrannical practices, and makes them more likely to make slow evolutionary changes in the direction of B's policies. Again, I would acknowledge that this functions better at a micro rather than macro scale, but it doesn't just suddenly cease to work at all in macro terms.

The way I see it, we've got a few choices:

If we really need item X good/service, get it from whatever source is the least tyrannical / evil / obnoxious.

If we don't really need item X, or we don't need it enough to tolerate imperfect / tyrannical / evil sources for it, then don't buy it.

If we feel frustrated by this, bitch about it on the internet, and prepare for the whole situation to magically get better!

>> ^Asmo:
(eg. the Law of Gravity has passed so many tests it cannot be disproven for example)

Gravity if only a Theory, not a Law (as it currently stands.) It was only a Law after Newton and until Einstein changed it. Yes, your "law" that cannot be disproven was in fact, disproven. It was replaced by another theory on gravity. Now, we have this really odd problem of explaining why gravity fails at the atomic level. It works great for explaining things on the macro level but once you get to atomic it falls apart. Not exactly a totally disproven law is it? Gravity is a theory, nothing more.

What's great about that theory though is that it still works. Hence why it's an accepted theory. We launch rockets into space using it and the Myth Busters test whether a bullet that is dropped lands at the same time one that is fired lands. It's an amazing theory.

>> ^Asmo:
God is a hypothesis at best

Science wouldn't even consider this a hypothesis. Hypothesis, when used correctly, refers to a more stringent examination of the world. Let's us the example of the apple. When the apple fell, Newton didn't immediately come up with the theory of gravity. He didn't even come up with a hypothesis really. After dropping a few items and seeing similar events he noted a pattern. Once a pattern was established and some examples were collected, then he could make a hypothesis. It takes observable events to create a hypothesis. Now, the biggest difference between saying God is a hypothesis is that we cannot observe the acts of God like we can observe acts of Gravity. This is why religions have Faith, because they cannot observe the acts and thus must have trust that they will happen without any proof.

While it's somewhat understandable to called religion a hypothesis, it simply undermines the process that science takes to understand the world. Additionally, if God was a hypothesis, it would already be disproven and rejected from the community. God would be dead and religion would cease.

>> ^Asmo:
(eg. the Law of Gravity has passed so many tests it cannot be disproven for example)

All I have to say is wow. First off, Gravity if only a Theory, not a Law. It was only a Law after Newton and until Einstein changed it. Yes, your "law" that cannot be disproven was in fact, disproven. It was replaced by another theory on gravity. Now, we have this really odd problem of explaining why gravity fails at the atomic level. It works great for explaining things on the macro level but once you get to atomic it falls apart. Not exactly a totally disproven law is it? Gravity is a theory, nothing more.

What's great about that theory though is that it still works. Hence why it's an accepted theory. We launch rockets into space using it and the Myth Busters test whether a bullet that is dropped lands at the same time one that is fired lands. It's an amazing theory.

>> ^Asmo:
God is a hypothesis at best

Science wouldn't even consider this a hypothesis. Hypothesis, when used correctly, refers to a more stringent examination of the world. Let's us the example of the apple. When the apple fell, Newton didn't immediately come up with the theory of gravity. He didn't even come up with a hypothesis really. After dropping a few items and seeing similar events he noted a pattern. Once a pattern was established and some examples were collected, then he could make a hypothesis. It takes observable events to create a hypothesis. Now, the biggest difference between saying God is a hypothesis is that we cannot observe the acts of God like we can observe acts of Gravity. This is why religions have Faith, because they cannot observe the acts and thus must have trust that they will happen without any proof.

While it's somewhat understandable to called religion a hypothesis, it simply undermines the process that science takes to understand the world. Additionally, if God was a hypothesis, it would already be disproven and rejected from the community. God would be dead and religion would cease.

>> ^Asmo:


I think the people that came up with religion were very very clever indeed. Gods who never reveal themselves and who find you wanting for even questioning their existence?

Ain't that the truth!

Almonildo:
So here's where it gets muddy. Let's take your scenario of the entirely computerized brain, instead, this time, it's a COPY of an existing person's brain, rather than the end result of a sequential replacement of our unfortunate subject.
Would it be a crime, murder, to disconnect the power from that computer, or to destroy it?
I don't see it the same way, either - to assume the computer simulation would possess awareness. I don't know that would be a given. Possible - but not a given. (And I admittedly lean toward "doubtful".)
Taken further - a computer that simulates an "uninitiated" brain. Would it "develop" awareness? Would it behave differently if given the same sensory inputs? And how would we know? (Currently, we couldn't.)

The problem I have is that it doesn't make sense for it all to be correlated physically. Each individual cell fires or doesn't. An impulse is propagated or it isn't. The co-location of function ends at the macro level of "in the brain" or "in this area of the brain". Beyond that, the physical behavior of the brain is dispersed into individual cells. Awareness is obviously a product of many simultaneous stimuli which are never physically co-incident.

Here's another one: You propose that you can tell you're aware, but you cannot be sure of those around you. They act like they're aware, but it's impossible (so far, anyway) to say for certain. I can see two ways of looking at this.
One is to presume awareness because, as you say, you see no reason not to. To me that's like saying, "I have a 1'x1' black box with a white stripe. It contains duck trousers. Other black boxes must contain duck trousers because they also have white stripes."
Another way is to say that it suggests intuitively that awareness is distinct from behavior. We can't be certain anyone else is "aware" because the physical existence by itself isn't proof enough.

Another avenue that I might want to investigate further is lobotomies. Is it possible a lobotomized patient has been stripped of their awareness? I don't know enough about it to formulate a informed opinion on the subject. (In fact, the previous question might be terribly offensive to the lobotomized!)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.
I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.
Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.


Aye all good points, i just wish there was more of an emphasis on birth control in these places that currently get food aid, not that i am against giving hungry children food, but just feeding a few of them doesn't solve the core problems (i'm not saying just birth control will either). The death rates per country (as you mentioned was missing) closely matches that of the birth rates given in my earlier link, the top 40 is pretty much all African nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

I realise some work goes into education (in regards to use of condoms etc) in these countries with rampant poverty, but there is still much ignorance, in no small part because pretty much all the major religions oppose the use of condoms because of their view that chastity is "the only sure way of preventing the spread of HIV and Aids" (Pope Benedict). When ignorance of this magnitude is present in the world, bad things happen.
edit: just saw your name is Jesusfreak, hopefully you realise i dont mean to use the religious view on condoms as a personal attack.

That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.

I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.

Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.

>> ^rychan:
>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.

Mostly false. More people = better economies of scale = better standards of living for everyone.
Do you think a company like Intel could exist without a first world economy with billions of people? How can they afford to invest 10's of billions of dollars and millions of man hours into infrastructure and research to create a next generation CPU? Because the world economy is big enough for them to make up their investments.
Do you think the NIH could distribute 10's of billions of dollars for medical research to extend and improve your life if we didn't have hundreds of millions of taxpayers?
The larger the world economy, the more specialists such as scientists and researchers you can support to benefit the entire world. The more amazing engineering projects you can undertake because the return on investment is higher. GPS, the Internet, etc etc... You could not enjoy the quality of life that you have now if the world population were 1 million people, regardless of how educated they might be and how trivial food and energy production might be (hint: neither would be trivial, because both enjoy economies of scale and both benefit from modern science).


So by your logic the countries with the highest birth rates should have the best standards of living in the world right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

Also, I dont argue that more people = better quality of life for some of the population, but that's looking at it from a macro scale, when you look more closely you'll see that the people benefitting from the additional population are not the poor, they are just providing cheap labour for the companies, and the people who use the resources are the ones getting the most benefit - hence why choice for them makes sense.

Nice demo. Very much looking forward to seeing some DX11 titles, like Dirt 2.

It's a shame though that the ladybug's movements are so... unnatural. Having done a buttload of macro photos this past summer it's too noticeable for me.

Have to disagree here. Economics is a valuable field of study, but it is not science or a science.

>> ^yaroslavvb:
"Trusting in academia to determine intellectual clout is unwise. Moreover, academia is chop full of people interested in validating Macro economics, it keeps the research grant money coming."
That's like accusing "academia" of reinforcing anti-Creationism theories because it keeps the grant money coming. Partially true (you'd have a hard time funding Creationist research, or anti-modern-economics research), but besides the point. Macroeconomics is a science, and we can either choose to listen to scientists regarding macroeconomics issues, or to politicians/clergy etc.

Have to disagree here. Economics is a valuable field of study, but it is not science or a science.

In reply to this comment by yaroslavvb:
"Trusting in academia to determine intellectual clout is unwise. Moreover, academia is chop full of people interested in validating Macro economics, it keeps the research grant money coming."

That's like accusing "academia" of reinforcing anti-Creationism theories because it keeps the grant money coming. Partially true (you'd have a hard time funding Creationist research, or anti-modern-economics research), but besides the point. Macroeconomics is a science, and we can either choose to listen to scientists regarding macroeconomics issues, or to politicians/clergy etc.

Phrenology and Physiognomy were science too, are now rejected as their claims held false. Macro-economics was unable to foresee stagflation because it's view of economy is flawed. Bad science should be thrown away, period.

"Trusting in academia to determine intellectual clout is unwise. Moreover, academia is chop full of people interested in validating Macro economics, it keeps the research grant money coming."

That's like accusing "academia" of reinforcing anti-Creationism theories because it keeps the grant money coming. Partially true (you'd have a hard time funding Creationist research, or anti-modern-economics research), but besides the point. Macroeconomics is a science, and we can either choose to listen to scientists regarding macroeconomics issues, or to politicians/clergy etc.

>> ^yaroslavvb:
"When goods are more highly demanded then prices go up, this is not inflation,"
Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
Increases in prices cause increases in incomes and vica versa. Hence there's no direct relation between inflation and buying power.


This isn't always the case as observed in the Carter years. Inflation can rise without wages increasing at the same rate. The term was stagflation, and was against everything Macro economics said was possible, which is why I say it is an invalid model, as did Von Mises.

Also, you don't need to have a degree in economics to be well informed on the subject. Trusting in academia to determine intellectual clout is unwise. Moreover, academia is chop full of people interested in validating Macro economics, it keeps the research grant money coming.

Interesting that all the references from the "Monetary Inflation" page are from Ron Paul and Von Mises institute, whereas the wikipedia "Inflation" page references are Macroeconomics textbooks.

Ron Paul may be sincere, but he is a physician with no formal economics training, and his macro-economic proposals (for instance, that we should encourage deflation), would go against advice of any established macro-economist.

Im sorry. For all intensive purposes I could of been more polite. I am a angry guy. And these thing's piss me off because I seen it so much. Fortunately my anger is preserved on you're profile page, for prosperity. I guess if you are happy with fucked up language you could put some whip cream on it and have yourself a fucked language Sunday. You and Westy could join force's and ignore what is correct all together because it seems you could care less irregardless.

The fact that language evolves on a macro scale doesn't mean that the individual contributors to this evolution don't look like morons when their contribution is a life of malapropisms. This is a very sensitive spot with me because I was raised to have an impeccable precision of speech.

Excuse me while I kiss this guy.
/Jimi Hendrix

EDIT: I have had great fun typing this. Have re-edited a couple times to pad out the errors in the first paragraph. I think I will use moron-speak whenever I address you from now on, since you seem to think that nothing is incorrect because language evolves. Maybe it will give me the same buzz Westy seems to get from intentionally typing like a chimpanzee on quaaludes.

Yes you SAID that, but if you MEANT something by it, it would be useful to state what. You say that consciousness ≠ thinking, but you maintain vagary on what it is, not defining your terms does not strengthen your position.

Likewise when you claim I am theist, without defining the deity, you undermine your own argument. That's why I'm an agnostic. I can't make claims about undefined terms.

From wikipedia:

The term hard problem of consciousness, coined by David Chalmers[1], refers to the difficult problem of explaining why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences. It is contrasted with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomenon. Hard problems are distinct from this set because they "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".

"Thinking", would fall under the easy problem of consciousness. Consciousness is a concept that is difficult to put into words, but I've found most humans share this sense. That is, we experience coherent unitary stream of multi-modal sensation. There is no physical reason for that. There are only physical correlates of aspects of these experiences. There is no unitary locus. It's the equivalent of saying that your graphics card is conscious because the registers contain an internal representation of whatever is being displayed. It's nonsensical unless you posit consciousness in the first place.

You know full well the ball is not "responding", it is effected, objects which don't have the capacity to act don't have the capacity to react. You are just avoiding the consequences of the obvious by conflating terms.


I respectfully disagree. Before I can explain further, I'd need to know what you mean by act. Am I "acting" if a series of billiard balls bounce off each other in my head leading to my hand moving? Obviously, the process is much more complicated involving semi-permeable membranes, electro-chemical gradients, allosteric processes involving ion-channel gating, sensory transduction, passive and active cable properties attenuating electrical signals, neurotransmitters, resonating macro-circuitry, etc... In the end, however, it's still billiard balls. Granted, I'm able to overcome much larger energy barriers than a single billiard ball, but I'm still running down the free-energy hill, as all physical processes are.