Total posts: 385
Posted in:
I watched CNN to make sure they were still full of crap.
I didn't need to watch Fox news again to know that they were.
Created:
Posted in:
Top 10 for July 2018 – Prime Time
- Fox News (2,406,000)
- MSNBC (1,663,000) 10. CNN (891,000)
An interesting side note - yesterday, when all the news outlets were discussing the Manafort and Cohen stories, Fox news ratings dropped to third place.
Republicans didn't want to hear it.
Reminds me of Miracle Max in "The Princess Bride" running from his wife yelling "I'm not listening!"
Created:
Perhaps the word "omnipotent" should be redefined as the ability to do anything that is possible. For a rock to be unliftable by a god, it would need to be of an infinite size which is impossible. That would eliminate the paradox from the original question by answering "no".
Created:
Posted in:
As you like say, you live your life as if your perceptions are real for convenience sake which is another way of saying functionality. You have a philosophical position that you disregard for convenience (functional) reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My point is that we do know - from our own perspective. It just can't be proven with 100% certainty. To say that one doesn't know anything is philosophically meaningless and functionally useless in my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
Not really. Perception implies an external phenomenon that causes your mind to create an image.
You could say that the universe may consist only of the hallucinations in your disembodied brain. That makes as much sense as any other solipsistic notion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "real". Even a simulation is "real" from at least one perspective. It is not beyond epistemological limits to say that the universe (defined as all that exists) is real.
Perhaps you mean that your perception of the universe may not be accurate. In my opinion, that sentiment is meaningless and useless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no perceiving anything directly. Ever. Not for us as humans. There are only the brain states.
Then what do you mean when you keep saying that we are unable to "experience reality directly"? That is like saying we are unable to be unicorns. It doesn't mean anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Correct. So what other way of perceiving things do think would qualify as perceiving reality directly?These brain states are all you ever really perceive. Ever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
we still are not experiencing reality directly but instead experiencing the mental picture our brains form of it.
The concept of experiencing "reality directly" apart from our senses seems to me to be an incoherent concept, an impossibility for anyone or anything. Your senses are experiencing reality as directly as anything can, just from a different perspective than anyone or anything else. In your concept of experiencing reality directly, one would need to be able to perceive a thing in all of it's forms from every position and perspective possible. A thing can be perceived from a physical distance perspective, from a frequency perspective, from human and non-human sensory perspectives, etc. Even if you were able to perceive every electron and quark making up a thing it would just be another perspective which excludes other perspectives. Unless you are able to experience all possible perspectives (which would be infinite) then the concept is incoherent.
Your mental picture of a thing is a way of experiencing reality directly.
You are probably more concerned with perceived "accuracy". It seems impossible to verify and I am happy to accept my perceptive accuracy as "good enough". I have no need to be solipsistic about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been moved to tears listening to classical music? Do you personally know anyone who has? I've gotten goosebumps from listening to classical music but not tears. Listening to sad lyrics can turn on the waterworks though.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know about music alone (I've never heard music without lyrics that made me cry) but I'm sure that a computer could eventually produce music combined with a human lyricist/singer that might do the trick.
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
What do you as a human think of this piece and indeed of the idea of computers producing original music?
I've heard worse. It seems to work on a rudimentary musical level.
Well we certainly aren't ready to replace John Williams but do you think a computer will ever compose popular music?
Based on that example, it is obviously possible. Given more notes, chords, instruments, music theory to work with, etc. a computer should be able to come up with something decent. Music is an inherently mathematical form of expression. A computer should be able to exploit that effectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
If the commenter was not worried about how their relationship being somehow damaged/weakened, there's no reason they would be deceitful.
Wrong again. One need not be concerned with the health of a relationship to be concerned about preserving someone's feelings (it is possible but not necessary). It's called empathy. They simply don't want to hurt the other person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
No, it's to prevent guilt. If the commenter values their relationship with the other person, then they probably don't want to risk hurting it by being truthful in that instance.
No. There are instances where someone genuinely cares about the feelings of others and doesn't wish to hurt them. If you can't comprehend that, you may be a sociopath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
Lying about someone's appearance is doing so to prevent them from being hurt, not self-interest.I'm curious as to any specific examples you may have of self-interest not being a factor in being dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I thought that "unlawful" was implied in my statement. The problem with only saying "unlawful" is that there are lawful reasons to kill someone that are "justified". That is why the term "unjustified" matters.*UnlawfulMurdering person X because you can get their stuff afterwards is a justification for killing in itself.
So it's not murder there, but should it, or should it not, be considered as such, independent of whether or not it is lawful in particular areas?
No. It does not fit the definition of murder. Suicide is the killing of oneself. Murder is the killing of another person. A physician assisting with a suicide is not killing another person. They are assisting another person to painlessly kill themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Assisted suicide is not murder.Interesting take, why do you hold this to be the case? 🤔
Physician assisted suicide is legal in multiple countries and in seven U.S. states. Murder is the unjustified killing of another person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the murder would not have happened had there not been a call to action. this kind of mirrors Dr. Kevorkian and his assisted suicide.
No it doesn't. Assisted suicide is not murder.
Created:
Posted in:
People lie to get what they want. That could be anything like money, respect, admiration, accolades, acceptance, to cause someone harm, to spare someone from harm, an attempt to conceal an immoral or illegal act, etc. Ultimately they want something and see lying as the way to get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No, a painting and a painter are two different things and one could not exist without the other. A tautological statement might be something like "a painting made with a canvas and paint".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Using the strict definition of "painting" as something that only a human could have intentionally created, then I would say that yes, a painting implies the existence of a painter. It is implicit in that definition of the word "painting".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then perhaps the word "death" is incorrect. Something like "heat transformation" may be more appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Wouldn't the heat death of the universe be considered the destruction opposing it's creation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No. An animal could possibly knock a can of paint on a canvas. Unless one is willing to say that an unwitting animal is a painter, there are scenarios that can be conceived of where the answer is no. You might also need to more clearly define the word "painting".
Created:
Posted in:
One solution is modular homes. You have it driven to your lot in sections and assembled. Basically the same thing as a mobile home but bigger. Very little difference between that and a regular home except they cost less.
Created:
Posted in:
Equal guilt, first degree murder for both parties. The murder could not happen without the willing participation of both. Without the hiring, the killing would not happen. Without a willing killer, person A could not do the hiring. The sentence would be whatever the state sentence is for murder 1.
Created:
Posted in:
I bow to your vast technological expertise. I was unaware of your extensive un-biased product testing. I'm sure the "rubbish" coming out of Consumer Reports is nothing more than fake news.
You win. The iPhone is just a fad.
Created:
Posted in:
They aren't the same product. According to Consumer Reports the iPhone is superior in the following categories:
handset capabilities
battery life
camera
texting
calling
ergonomics
browsing
music
navigation
That is why someone would pay more for "essentially the same product".
Created:
Posted in:
So you want to know why someone would pay more for a superior product? I don't buy $2 bottles of wine but they have the same functionality as a $20 bottle. If someone can afford a higher price for a superior product, why wouldn't they buy it?
Created:
Posted in:
So much more? It's cheaper than the Samsung. Is the Samsung a fad too? Your post makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, the top of the line Samsung phone is $1249 and the top of the line iPhone is $1149. The iPhone integrates seamlessly with other Apple products. I think your information may be out of date.
Created:
Posted in:
I would like to see an "Active Topics" button so you can easily see the latest posts and related threads regardless of the category.
Created:
Posted in:
The iPhone is hardly a fad now that it has been around for 11 years and counting. It will die off when something more technologically advanced replaces it, not because people find a new fad with which to occupy themselves. It has too many utilitarian uses to be considered a fad. Is a generic telephone itself just a fad? Is a generic camera just a fad? Is the internet just a fad? Combining those things into one device is an economical and practical technological achievement.
Created: