Well, we can't explain that. However, what I mean is that we put a tremendous amount of faith just in our basic ability to rationally comprehend the world around us. Our worldly knowledge is hopelessly incomplete and constantly changing, and must be continually re-evaluated. It's the same thing for science; it doesn't prove anything. Here's a letter to the editor quote from Science magazine:

The title of the 6 May News of the Week story “At long last, Gravity Probe B satellite proves Einstein right” (p. 649) made me cringe. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement. I wouldn’t have expected Science magazine, of all places, to say a theory was “proved.”

The reply:

Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.

As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:

27th February, 1942, midday

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..



>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.


May as well be saying the following:
"The tide comes in, the tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that."
- Bill O'Reilly
Hitler and the Nazis claimed to be devout Christians. Learn a lil history before you go around blaming that shit on atheists, please.

Oh, I never meant to imply that it was easy. I've had to build a cpu twice, once for Computer Architecture and once for Digital Electronics. One was entirely simulated and one was loaded onto an FPGA (a programmable chip). Using software like Xilinx ISE or Altera, you can simulate the necessary logic gates to build and test the electronics, then "install" it to an FPGA. It took us about 2-3 weeks to do it, but it was definitely a hectic and stressful few weeks. What he probably did was simulate the setup and then build it to a couple of breadboards (which I can see there in the videos) using some component chips. (Here's a list of some on wikipedia.)

Now he also did a graphics module, which is not necessarily harder, but is built quite differently, so I estimate that took another month or so to figure out. Once those two major components are done, the rest of it is pretty easy to hook together, and all that's left is putting together the software.

So yeah, assuming he was doing this in his spare time, a year sounds about right. It just takes dedication and the willingness to learn the process. Nice to see a teenager willing to take the time to do it, and the results are testament to that.
>> ^marinara:

really? I agree, it's not a theoretical/conceptual feat. It's an engineering/fabrication feat. But, I can't ever use the word "easy" to describe what this teenager did.

really? I agree, it's not a theoretical/conceptual feat. It's an engineering/fabrication feat. But, I can't ever use the word "easy" to describe what this teenager did. >> ^Sylvester_Ink:

Most CS majors learn to do this in their computer architecture classes, and usually implement it via an fpga.

That awesome Bill and Ted bit! Speaks eloquently to the big conceptual hurdles at the heart of time travel of anything informative to the past.

Bill and Ted could be operating on a 'destiny' time line, where traveling back and forward along the same line is possible, the past and future are set, and free will is an illusion!

>> ^imstellar28:

There's nothing "small" about a government which takes 30-50% of a person's income and maintains military bases in most countries on the planet.

My point was that "small" government is a stupid way of looking at things in the first place. If you accept the basic fundamental role of a state is to establish and enforce laws, you shouldn't be caring about whether it's "small" or not, but whether it's acting with the interest of the governed in mind, or not.
>> ^imstellar28:
You think the answer is giving more power to elected officials,

No. This is what the "small" government fallacy leads you to believe. Because I refuse to view everything through your lens of "small" vs. "big", you mislabel me as somehow being in favor of being for "big" government as an end in and of itself. Not true.

I think government should be like a giant open-source operating system. Everyone gets to use it, and anyone can contribute new and improved rules for making it work better. My goal is to try to persuade people to see society this way in general, because I think changing societal norms is the only long-term fix for any of these problems.

My point is that the arguments we should be having are "how do we make this system work well", and not spend all our time fighting about how many lines of code are in the OS, or how much memory it uses. I'm open to the idea that cutting lines of code or unnecessary features could make the system work better overall, but I'm vehemently against the idea that we must be single-mindedly focused on reducing the scope of the OS at all times.
>> ^imstellar28:
but what you keep ignoring is that the private sector is made up of the same types of people.

Actually, that's part of why I said that all this talk about "small" government is a distraction. The focus shouldn't be on moving public services into the private sector, it should be on holding the people who're not serving the public interest accountable, and finding systematic ways to prevent people like that from abusing the system.

If the argument is that privatization increases accountability, that's at least the right way to approach the topic. If the argument is that this is the systematic fix, I think you've got a lot of work to do to convince me there's any benefit to handing prison management over to a for-profit company...
>> ^imstellar28:
The monopoly on force (government) should persist only to enforce the rule of law, nothing more. Cultural development is a personal choice and as such must be left to the people because a single person (or group) should not decide the culture of a nation. And yes, I would say that roads, education, telecommunications, healthcare and the like are all cultural characteristics. They have to be because they have only existed for small portions of our history - whereas the rule of law has (conceptually) existed, unchanged, ever since the first two humans learned to communicate with each other.
Here I think we have a much bigger schism. Not the one you might think though -- I think we're part of the same culture. I think implicit in your statement is that because we disagree on some/most of these topics, we are by definition not part of the same culture, and I think as long as you're a citizen of the Western world, we're all in the same culture.

Beyond that, I think if I really pressed you on taxation, I think you'd eventually admit to believing there's a universal moral principle involved, and that it's not some sort of simple cultural preference, just like if you pressed me on health care, I'd admit to believing there's a universal moral principle involved, and that it's not some sort of simple cultural preference.

@NetRunner

There's nothing "small" about a government which takes 30-50% of a person's income and maintains military bases in most countries on the planet. You think the answer is giving more power to elected officials, but what you keep ignoring is that the private sector is made up of the same types of people. I mean, did you not watch this video which said that 85% of Serco's employees came from the public sector? Characters in both groups have the same ambition for power and wealth, so both will make similar decisions when faced with a given situation. The details will vary from person to person but invariably individuals in both groups will vote to increase their own wealth and power, not to make the world a better place.

The monopoly on force (government) should persist only to enforce the rule of law, nothing more. Cultural development is a personal choice and as such must be left to the people because a single person (or group) should not decide the culture of a nation. And yes, I would say that roads, education, telecommunications, healthcare and the like are all cultural characteristics. They have to be because they have only existed for small portions of our history - whereas the rule of law has (conceptually) existed, unchanged, ever since the first two humans learned to communicate with each other.

"Don't fuck with my life and I won't fuck with yours"

What you are effectively suggesting is that we take the same pool of greedy assholes, and instead of dividing them into camp A and camp B, we should put them all under the same command chain (even more centralized power). Worse still, you want to give the very same corporate guys you are angry about the monopoly of force over other people! Don't the likes of Serco, Halliburton, BP, etc. cause enough humanitarian damage as it is, without an explicit license to kill?

>> ^kir_mokum:


beatmatch DJing conceptually is quite simple but it's not easy and it's actually very difficult to do well. matching the BPMs and fading between tunes is only the most rudimentary skill and even that is not nearly as easy as it sounds (some people can pick that up really quickly, most can't). keeping a crowd moving, re-contextualizing tunes, creating a story, keeping innovative, and staying on top of the music are some of the more mid level skills and they're very hard/impossible to teach.


This. Having done some DJing, it's a lot harder than it first appears, even if you can match beats - you need to keep the crowd going and have an (almost!) encyclopaedic knowledge of the tunes in your box to know what will fit next.

i facepalmed when a relatively "smart" movie like inception used the 10% brain myth, and it's even more insulting in a movie about psychopharamaceuticals... but this is entertainment, i guess. i dunno, the movie looks shit to me from the trailer, but then i suppose i have this whole psych bias thing where i have difficulty suspending disbelief when it comes to matters of the brain now.

you are aware that psychopharmaceuticals are already a reality, yes? just perhaps not in the domain of this movie. boston legal had an episode that covered a real drug that dampens emotional/traumatic memories -- it's an ongoing controversy.

re: ADHD... i definitely do not share your viewpoint on its cause, but i certainly think the disorder has been needlessly politicised and therefore is a conceptual mess.

Well, I'm just glad we reached this point. I don't really feel a need to "attack" your views, I just wanted you to play the "you can't understand" card. It's the kind of rhetoric I won't spend time arguing with. If I told you I experienced a revelation that led me to believe the universe is governed by an invisible unicorn in space you'd think I'm an idiot. Well, that's all I have for you in regards to "you can't understand it". You're right, I can't, I haven't experienced "spirituality" and as far as I'm concerned it's complete and utter BS.

>> ^shinyblurry:



I can tell you're itching to attack my views here, but since you're not sure, you can't unload the big guns. I'll make it easier for you. Yes, I believe in God. No, it isn't because I was raised with religion (i wasn't), nor was I indoctrinated. I was agnostic until a few years ago. I believe in God because of personal revelation.
Now you say God isn't likely. How would you know? If you want to look at it that way, everything is equally unlikely. Why should anything exist at all? I think you're having the problem that most atheists have, seperating the question from religious ideas about it. The question, "Was the Universe created?" is a perfectly reasonable one. I don't see why it seems so out there to some people to believe that the Universe could have been created. To say it all exploded out of nothing randomly I think is a much more bizzare (and ridiculous) thought.
The spiritual is not something you believe in, it's something you experience. It's not a matter of conceptualizing it, it's a matter of what is happening in actuality, real time, in the here and now. Before my beliefs changed, I had no clue what any of it was all about. I presumed people were imagining it. Not so. There are interconnections between us which transcend physiciality. There are parallel realities in which people can and do travel, in their dreams or wide awake. Until you experience it personally, you absolutely won't know anything about it what-so-ever. It's like trying to watch a football game from outside the stadium based on the noise the crowd is making.
I don't believe the things I do, or have the faith I have, because of some selfish need or weakness or fear. I believe as I do because of my personal experience. I wouldn't believe it, otherwise. It isn't arrogant of me to believe in something in which I have sufficient evidence personally. To me, truth is something tangible; it is not a vague conception. It is the framework of who and what I am. Regardless of whether it seems real to someone else, it is real to me, and the impact I have on the world is a direct result of that truth. So, either way you look at it, it's a real thing. This is what I meant about all the meaning out there. 7 billion human beings living out their truth. It is tangible to all of us.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
First of all, you misunderstood me completely, I was talking about spiritual belief, there's a difference between believing the sun will come up and believing in god and even there I have a problem with the verb "believe". I don't believe the sun will come up, I know it has come up every day since the day I was born so I assume (with quite a bit of certainty) that it will come up again tomorrow.
I understood from your words that you believe in god, you talk about meaning with such certainty and then you talk about humility? To me, true humility is accepting you can't truly believe in things of the spiritual nature, they are metaphysical, you have no means of judging their meaning/existence or lack there of. You could look at the different explanations science/religion/your own personal interpretation can offer and say which you feel the most at peace with.
You talk about the "trap" of nihilism, again, ironic. As far as I'm concerned religious belief is the trap, it is in of it self arrogance, it is saying "I believe in something because I do, because I have faith". I don't "believe" in science, I accept that it is our most efficient tool at understanding the world, it isn't an answer, it is a means. I don't understand how any humble human being deems it justifiable to just pick from a plethora of so called "answers" or "truths" and say "this one, this is true, this explains everything, there is meaning". Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you are religious then why would you talk about something like the sun rising and falling? It is a physical phenomenon that we can observe and make (somewhat) objective assumptions about. You must realize that in religion logic is never on your side, it is the belief in spite of logic, the insistence on the least likely, arrogance.


I can tell you're itching to attack my views here, but since you're not sure, you can't unload the big guns. I'll make it easier for you. Yes, I believe in God. No, it isn't because I was raised with religion (i wasn't), nor was I indoctrinated. I was agnostic until a few years ago. I believe in God because of personal revelation.

Now you say God isn't likely. How would you know? If you want to look at it that way, everything is equally unlikely. Why should anything exist at all? I think you're having the problem that most atheists have, seperating the question from religious ideas about it. The question, "Was the Universe created?" is a perfectly reasonable one. I don't see why it seems so out there to some people to believe that the Universe could have been created. To say it all exploded out of nothing randomly I think is a much more bizzare (and ridiculous) thought.

The spiritual is not something you believe in, it's something you experience. It's not a matter of conceptualizing it, it's a matter of what is happening in actuality, real time, in the here and now. Before my beliefs changed, I had no clue what any of it was all about. I presumed people were imagining it. Not so. There are interconnections between us which transcend physiciality. There are parallel realities in which people can and do travel, in their dreams or wide awake. Until you experience it personally, you absolutely won't know anything about it what-so-ever. It's like trying to watch a football game from outside the stadium based on the noise the crowd is making.

I don't believe the things I do, or have the faith I have, because of some selfish need or weakness or fear. I believe as I do because of my personal experience. I wouldn't believe it, otherwise. It isn't arrogant of me to believe in something in which I have sufficient evidence personally. To me, truth is something tangible; it is not a vague conception. It is the framework of who and what I am. Regardless of whether it seems real to someone else, it is real to me, and the impact I have on the world is a direct result of that truth. So, either way you look at it, it's a real thing. This is what I meant about all the meaning out there. 7 billion human beings living out their truth. It is tangible to all of us.

@SDGundamX

I'm still curious if you would have been offended if the video called believers in Zeus and Poseidon idiots. Is it belief in itself (any belief lacking empirical evidence against it) that you think should be shielded from intolerance or is it beliefs shared by many people? If I called someone who believed in Zeus a complete nutter, would that offend you? If it made them happy and comfortable with their lives.

I'm slightly confused by the multiverse angle, I'm not sure how the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a bigger likelihood of existing in another universe (as a magical being always existing without evolving into place), I guess it's possible to speculate in a universe that functions in a way that gives rise to Him, but how does that contradict the observations made on how this universe functions?

About the atrocities, I think that we still have atrocities going on today. Just take the deaths of millions of Africans from AIDS because they were taught not to use condoms. You probably think this is an atrocity, but it's bought with money pumped into the catholic church from millions of believers, most of them I would assume moderates, that lend their indirect support to the continuation of these teachings (although lately Ive heard the Pope has changed his mind, a bit too late for all those who are dead). And yes, the Church might be separate from the belief, but its built up on a base of belief and given power and cover by believers. And in 20 years we will hear the same story again "that was then, this is now, I agree that was an atrocity but now we're rid of all that, I don't believe in that, nobody I knows believes in that anymore". And then on to the next decision that affects other people negatively. And as such religion is always safe, the atrocities are always in the past and criticism can be deflected or ignored.

Look, I feel as I'm rambling but my basic point is this: Either you have good reasons for believing in something, or you don't. What makes someone happy might _seem_ right for him or her, but as a species we owe our continued survival and common well-being to realize our limits and overcome them. One such limit is that as pattern-seekers we encounter false positives all the time (this surely benefited us very early in our development). In ancient times a flood must mean the God's are angry. A bad harvest must mean the field is cursed. A modern version would be feeling religion gives our life meaning and happiness and must therefor contain some deeper truth. I simply cannot see how this follows.

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns, even if harshly as in calling someone an idiot.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna
With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.
With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.
In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.
I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

@chtierna

With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.

With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.

In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.

I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

No, not like Spiral Dynamics.

More like Sartre or Foucault, oriented towards a psychology of science.

"Phenomenology of Perception"
or
"Structure of Behavior"
are good places to start, although the latter is quite dense.

Also, "Sense and Nonsense" is worth reading for those interested in a thoughtful conceptualization of the arts, ideas, and politics.

>> ^enoch:

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
This has been part of the psychological literature since the early days of psychology (late 1800s), but did not capture the mainstream attention in the ways that psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and experimental psychology has seemed to.
For anyone interested in the culminating work of the scientific investigation of these kinds of phenomena should check out Maurice Merleu-Ponty's work, especially the Structure of Behavior (circa early 1940s).
>> ^enoch:
this is a great talk but i find it interesting how western psychology is just now beginning to address this in a substantive way because this is NOT a new concept or philosophy.
WTG psychologists!!! 3000 yrs later and just NOW you are starting to get it!
woohoo!

awesome.gonna check out ponty's work.
would it be along the same line as spiral dynamics?

Although I disliked the video, and although their not correctly located, I enjoy the time labels on the bottom conceptually. They're a good hack for something that will inevitably be integrated in internet video (and already is in more niche environments, viz. HowCast, Hulu to a lesser extent), hopefully sooner rather than later.

I posted this video purely for it's wtf factor. Somehow, this has ignited a serious conversation as to what and what does not constitute true art, and has called her artistic integrity and true motivations into question. Although I wouldn't classify this as 'high art', who the fuck am I to say that it is completely devoid of artistic merit? This seems to be more along the lines of conceptual performance art, and I highly doubt that she billed this as 'great theatre'...I enter into videos, such as this, with experiential prejudices and preconceived notions of the 'pretentious hipster artist', and I judge her and her type quite harshly, dismissing her work as an infantile attempt to induce shock value. If I knew that she was some kind of Julliard alumni who was touted as 'the future of dance', I wonder how that might affect my rating this video on a scale of 'artistic merit'. At least this production has balls and doesn't pander to the accepted norm. I would love to hear the average sifters critical analysis of a Picasso(for instance). We all know that he's considered to be a master, but why? Could you explain it without rehashing what you learned in Art History or what you've read on Wikipedia? Art fascism is an ugly thing. In the end it boils down to personal opinion....