"mere science"??

You should seek a purpose, because that's what you were built to do. Thinking is little more than randomness put together with simple rules which define how the randomness is interpreted by the body.

Think of an hourglass - from a distance, it's a fairly simple process: sand falls down through the pin hole and lands on the bottom - simple laws of physics, coming together in a cacophony of randomness. To be able to predict which grains of sand falls first, in which order they fall, the exact time it takes, etc etc. is incredibly complex and to be able to predict all details of the falling sand you would need a complete simulation of the universe, to make up for background radiation, quantum flux and whatnot.

The hourhglass cares not for all the reasons it does what it does, it just does it. Simple causality. Our brains function the same way, albeit with more complex rules determining our reactions to the causal forces. These "simple" rules present a virtual reality comprised of senses and interpretations in our brain which essentially create our consciousness, not a homonculus, but as a meta-software running in all parts of the brain, some places storing information, some places interpreting visual input and so on.

Your consciousness is desperate to observe its place in the world which is why all sorts of theories are created. "Purpose" is something we make up as we go along.

"I live for my kids", "I live for myself", "I live for soccer", etc etc. There is not universal purpose, other than potentially continuing the species, which is the underlying evolutionary effects, but they don't always work with us - we are one of the few species who actively work against natural selection, and thank goodness for that.

Uhm, gonna stop rambling.
>> ^maeric2000:

If the universe is an accident then why should I, an accidental creation of chaos, seek purpose? How is my purpose anything more than an accidental coming together of molecules into a pattern that seems to indicate design but is argued to be mere science?

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^rich_magnet:
Engineering information can be found here:
http://cyberwalk.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/
Basically, it's a conveyor belt of conveyor belts.

that's a cool and interesting solution.
what was so special about crossing legs or not crossing legs?


My guess, Breaks the illusion, and can potentially cause injury. I don't think that thing doesn't read how fast you're moving (i.e. you walk at a consistant 5 mph in whichever direction you face) and should you fall the conveyor belt would keep moving til you're off.. and then continue until someone stops it.

Your video, Cyberwalk - Virtual Reality Walking Surface, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^rich_magnet:

Engineering information can be found here:
http://cyberwalk.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/
Basically, it's a conveyor belt of conveyor belts.

that's a cool and interesting solution.

what was so special about crossing legs or not crossing legs?

>> ^blankfist:

I used to have a Scifi idea for a screenplay once (not a very good idea, mind you) where a guy living a normal existence one day experiences a bizarre "glitch" and wakes up on a sliding platform exactly like this one. He soon discovers his entire life was a series of simulated events regulated by computers. It was a mediocre idea at best, but a lot of the idea was identical to Matrix in many ways even though I thought it up well before that movie came out. It's just really odd to see this thing actually working, and in my mind it was almost exactly what you see there.


Ah ye olde, or actually quite new, simulation argument.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
and
http://www.simulism.org/Simulation
and
http://www.simulism.org/Simulism

>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^Jinx:
How is the distance between Nevada and Iraq any different from the distance between a bomber and its target, or from an Artillery gun to its target. Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable? Who'd have thought the most user friendly interface for shooting people in Virtual Reality would eventually be adopted to real life. You should all welcome it. Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago? Do you think thats because of improved weapons technology and training, or do you think its because todays GIs are saints compared to their 1945 brothers?
Yeah, guided missiles are better at not killing stuff.


I believe you are wrong. It is a difference because your taking life without the chance of your being taken. Its no different than playing halo online with some god mode, you get to live while everyone else dies. War in itself is wrong unless your purely defending imho. Look at that I did it without calling you a douche. A sense of pride overcomes me.


This is also much like when guns were invented. The further you are from your enemy when you attack, the less likely you'll witness any harm to yourself.

I believe this is misdirected anger. Being able to click a button and have someone die somewhere else on the planet is scary stuff. The real problem is the imaginary need to do this.

At the end of the day, the people in the position of those in the video likely have the same issue of knowing that they executed x number of people. I play violent video games in bliss, knowing nobody is harmed by my actions.

>> ^Jinx:
How is the distance between Nevada and Iraq any different from the distance between a bomber and its target, or from an Artillery gun to its target. Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable? Who'd have thought the most user friendly interface for shooting people in Virtual Reality would eventually be adopted to real life. You should all welcome it. Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago? Do you think thats because of improved weapons technology and training, or do you think its because todays GIs are saints compared to their 1945 brothers?
Yeah, guided missiles are better at not killing stuff.



I believe you are wrong. It is a difference because your taking life without the chance of your being taken. Its no different than playing halo online with some god mode, you get to live while everyone else dies. War in itself is wrong unless your purely defending imho. Look at that I did it without calling you a douche. A sense of pride overcomes me.

Totally solid point, Jinx. Still disgusting to me, though.>> ^Jinx:
How is the distance between Nevada and Iraq any different from the distance between a bomber and its target, or from an Artillery gun to its target. Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable? Who'd have thought the most user friendly interface for shooting people in Virtual Reality would eventually be adopted to real life. You should all welcome it. Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago? Do you think thats because of improved weapons technology and training, or do you think its because todays GIs are saints compared to their 1945 brothers?
Yeah, guided missiles are better at not killing stuff.

The "drones" aren't only the unmanned aircraft.
Trained mammals who kill other mammals with no thought. Just following orders.
Same old story, and the further away we get from the blood we spill, the easier and more detached the actions become.
Jinx, if you even bothered to look at history, you'd note that the percentage of military to civilian casualties has been flipped within the past 100 years - with a much higher percentage of "collateral damage" -- such a nice, innocuous term. And this type of "virtual reality" is a one-sided virtual. There is nothing "virtual" about being blown up. Rah Rah support of this technological travesty is as insipid as joining the military to protect "freedom" when all you really are is a pawn in the game of power projection.

How is the distance between Nevada and Iraq any different from the distance between a bomber and its target, or from an Artillery gun to its target. Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable? Who'd have thought the most user friendly interface for shooting people in Virtual Reality would eventually be adopted to real life. You should all welcome it. Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago? Do you think thats because of improved weapons technology and training, or do you think its because todays GIs are saints compared to their 1945 brothers?

Yeah, guided missiles are better at not killing stuff.

@Kreegath, I wouldn't say that was my argument. My argument was that the original author wasn't making a particularly bold claim -- he was just raising the concern that a ham-handed pro-social message like "the group is always right" is a dangerous one.

I agree with that.

As I kept revisiting the original post, I realized that I'd come away with the wrong impression the first time I read it. I realized that the author didn't say there was an evil conspiracy afoot, blankfist said that, and acted as though the author agreed with his assertion.

So yeah, the argument topic shifted around a bit at first, but in the end my main point was that blankfist's conspiracy theory is bunk, and what the author said isn't even evidence to support such a claim.

That's when he started calling me a Nazi, said he was "on top", then acted as if he didn't care about winning the argument.

The way I see it, disagreements between people are great opportunities to learn something. The theory goes something like this:

• Everyone believes their viewpoint is based on facts and reason
  
• Facts and reason are deterministic -- i.e. everyone should come to the same conclusions if they use the same facts and proper reasoning
  
• Therefore, if someone disagrees with you, one of you must be using faulty facts, or faulty reason, and debate can uncover which part is the problem.
  

That's why I'm content to argue like a junkyard dog with people who seem to be operate on generally accurate fact, and generally sound reason (like blankfist), because I think there's a possibility one of us might learn something from the other.

It's why I generally don't engage people who live in a virtual reality of their own self-supporting facts (e.g. Obama is a radical socialist, tax cuts universally and permanently increase tax revenue, intelligent design is a valid scientific viewpoint, etc.). There just isn't much opportunity for either of us to learn from one another because they've got a whole universe filled with their own faith-based, incorrect facts supporting them.

There's always a competitive spirit to debates though. You want the other guy to be the one who reassesses his position, not be the one who has to face facts and reconsider your own. However, in my own collectivist opinion, this means arguing is a win-win situation; someone's going to be rid of a flawed or incorrect theory, and someone's going to have their own tested and validated. Even if you don't get that breakthrough, at a minimum it can help both have some healthy skepticism about their own beliefs, and come away with new considerations to reflect on.

Out of this one, I come away wondering what kinds of influences might be in modern day cartoons, and at whose behest, and what can reasonably be done about it. I hope blankfist comes away realizing that the problem is more general than he thinks -- it's not purely collectivist parent groups, it's going to be Christian parent groups, it's going to be anti-government parent groups, it's going to be corporate interests of the network, and it might just be stupid people passing on their own stupidity. It's also not really anything you can do much about, except that you need make sure to be a good parent, and be mindful of messages subtle and gross that other people are sending to your children.

Almost all of these oddities are easily explained with slight differences in camera angles mixed with extremes telephoto lenses. All of these camera shots were miles away from ground zero.

The timing of the blackouts are strangely similar, but why would there be black-outs at all? Because during live video shots, technicians were sitting at the controls with orders from the FCC to not show "traumatic imagerey" on live tv. That's why they have a tape delay. This is in large part due to a suicide by shotgun that was accidentally broadcast live in 1998. News stations all moved to tape delays and had instructions to "obscure" violence that happened during live broadcasts.

Some thought the plane impact was such a moment, others did not. Obviously two people at two different tv stations had very similar gut reactions: to obscure the moment of impact, but get back to the shot as soon as possible. And their timing was a little slow.

Obviously this is just a guess, but it is far more plausible than some vast conspiracy that the US government is incapable of pulling off.

....

Trying to finish watching, but it's too painful. Whoever made this can't grasp simple concepts like perspective.

And they think it's more likely that a super-sophisticated virtual reality program accidentally made a background character translucent rather than do a little research about video interleaving and compression.

And they think to simplify complex concepts like acoustic dynamics in a dense urban environment.

Patently absurd. I can't finish watching.

Give me some real evidence. Lets hear from some of the dozens or hundreds of government workers that had to have been involved in this so-called fabrication. I would believe one single whistle-blower with some real government credentials over a thousand "charcoal" planes and "road-runner" physics videos.

Only "gummint busybodies and religious crusaders" are going to be sympathetic? I think that you have spent too much time on the internet. It doesn't take crazy people to realize that nothing good comes from porn and that it is a destructive, disgusting, immoral industry.

The quantum side of the mushroom is that I agree and disagree at the same time. Pr0n is a con, a tease and an addictive surrogate for a great many men. But it also fulfills a biological need (if women wanted to fark as much as men, there'd be no one doing anything else) as well as a need for illusion and fantasy. One could also make a pretty convincing argument that all the romance crap that women willfully subject themselves to creates an unhealthy and unrealistic view of men and relationships. Many a man has suddenly found himself in the doghouse for not being able to telepathically read a woman's mind.

The majority of sane people believe (pr0n is bad). It is not an unusual, backward, or unfounded notion. I don't think that people of my parents' generation realize the extent to which their sons and daughters are falling victim to the lie and becoming involved in or addicted to porn.

Billions are being spent on pr0n, but watching pr0n is just one of those things that people do that they see no reason to admit to. Sexuality cannot be separated from humanity and it's been around awhile.

http://india-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_erotic_temples_of_khajuraho

If we create a market for this filth, someone is going to do it.

It's economics. The human sex drive came first (sorry) and pr0n is just the latest incarnation of market forces fulfilling a need...and it's only going to get worse (or better). To paraphrase (and update) Dennis Miller: If some unemployed construction worker in Trenton, New Jersey, lying on a sofa with a bong, can jack in to his computer and make love to Megan Fox for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack look like Sanka."

I realize that sex workers have more options than 19th century factory workers, but there is no way that working in the sex industry is psychologically healthy. Someone is always going to do it as long as the industry continues to grow.

Just like Lubben says, those who are involved defend the industry. I find that porn users defend porn like it's their firstborn. Regulate and make as many laws as you want. Porn is and always will be a plague on society.

Pr0n has its place in both society and life itself. A great many religious people can and do watch it.

It would be wonderful if everyone found the love of their life and had a committed relationship, etc., but that's not how the world works.

Prostitution should be legal the world over. The Europeans are light years ahead of us on this, and Jerusalem is the prostitution capital of the world.

The internets must be used for more than witty political remarks and sifting!

>> ^entr0py:
This video along with Johnny Lee's awesome Wii hacks make me think that hardware companies could easily come up with really amazing stuff if they wanted to. And what do we get? The xbox camera/mic and the ps3 wagglesticks.
Just curious, did any of you try virtual reality around 16 years ago when it was newish and being hyped in the media? It's an amazing experience, I still haven't seen anything that compares to it to this day.
The setup I tried had a full helmet with two stereoscopic screens which surrounds the field of view, has built in speakers, and blocks out external light and sound. As well as independent motion tracking of the head and hands. It ran a simple but intuitive FPS, which was also the first true 3D (no sprites) FPS I had ever seen. Compared to that I always have to laugh when people talk about today's games as being "immersive"


You might be talking about the Forte VFX1 Headset, which was by far the geekiest gadget since the Nintendo Power Glove. I played the original System Shock on it and it was great.

http://www.combatsim.com/archive/htm/htm_arc4/vfx1.htm

This video along with Johnny Lee's awesome Wii hacks make me think that hardware companies could easily come up with really amazing stuff if they wanted to. And what do we get? The xbox camera/mic and the ps3 wagglesticks.

Just curious, did any of you try virtual reality around 16 years ago when it was newish and being hyped in the media? It's an amazing experience, I still haven't seen anything that compares to it to this day.

The setup I tried had a full helmet with two stereoscopic screens which surrounds the field of view, has built in speakers, and blocks out external light and sound. As well as independent motion tracking of the head and hands. It ran a simple but intuitive FPS, which was also the first true 3D (no sprites) FPS I had ever seen. Compared to that I always have to laugh when people talk about today's games as being "immersive"