Menu Bar
shorn's Comments
Re: Johnny Carson: Flip Wilson, 1965
For all his laughter Johnny didn't ask him to sit down.
Or were they not doing that thing then?
Or were they not doing that thing then?
By: shorn
Re: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial
While in principle I agree; if someone's debunking of theist propaganda makes even one wrong-headed individual question their beliefs it is worth it.
By: shorn
Re: Bernie Mac M*th*rf*ck*r
Apparently a lot of people thought he was. They didn't own 160 comedy recordings though, so you probably know better.
By: shorn
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
State and local(though I don't know what you mean by local if you don't mean the national guard which would be the state militia, as I'm fairly certain you are not speaking of civilian formed militia groups) are government bodies and hence( I see no reason why I shouldn't also make use of the word as well, it sounds cooler that way) not within the purview of what I wrote. I am speaking of the regular citizen.
But regardless I also wasn't trying to banter back and forth upon what a normal citizen should and shouldn't own. But rather the argument isn't about what weapons might be used for home defense and hunting. Because the 2nd amendment is about having the means to protect yourself against a goverment who has grown to big for it's britches so to speak.
But regardless I also wasn't trying to banter back and forth upon what a normal citizen should and shouldn't own. But rather the argument isn't about what weapons might be used for home defense and hunting. Because the 2nd amendment is about having the means to protect yourself against a goverment who has grown to big for it's britches so to speak.
By: shorn
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
The thing is the Second Amendment isn't about home defense or hunting. The Second Amendment was created because the forefathers believed that people couldn't truly be free if they were under the total rule of the government.
They believed that should the government possess all of the military might that they could easily subjugate the populace. One must remember that they had just finished fighting a revolution. One in which that ruling body had tried to disarm an unruly and possibly seditious populace.
We see the Second Amendment today through modern eyes where the military has tanks and jets and bombs and missiles et al. But in those times there were men and muskets and cannon and that was about it. So the difference between a fighting "army" and lambs to the slaughter were the muskets. You take those away and you can do whatever you want to them.
Today even if every American citizen had a "machine gun" it still wouldn't equal the might of the military. Or would it? The Powers of the world have in the past certainly been held to a stand still by mobs with little else.
The second amendment isn't about home defense or hunting or sportsmanship or whatever else. It's about making sure that you retain enough power for yourself to make sure that someone doesn't take away every other right on the Bill of Rights.
It sounds crazy I guess to some that we might need guns to protect ourselves from the government. But I think that is a difference between someone who trusts their welfare to the good graces of other men, and those that take responsibility for it themselves.
They believed that should the government possess all of the military might that they could easily subjugate the populace. One must remember that they had just finished fighting a revolution. One in which that ruling body had tried to disarm an unruly and possibly seditious populace.
We see the Second Amendment today through modern eyes where the military has tanks and jets and bombs and missiles et al. But in those times there were men and muskets and cannon and that was about it. So the difference between a fighting "army" and lambs to the slaughter were the muskets. You take those away and you can do whatever you want to them.
Today even if every American citizen had a "machine gun" it still wouldn't equal the might of the military. Or would it? The Powers of the world have in the past certainly been held to a stand still by mobs with little else.
The second amendment isn't about home defense or hunting or sportsmanship or whatever else. It's about making sure that you retain enough power for yourself to make sure that someone doesn't take away every other right on the Bill of Rights.
It sounds crazy I guess to some that we might need guns to protect ourselves from the government. But I think that is a difference between someone who trusts their welfare to the good graces of other men, and those that take responsibility for it themselves.
By: shorn
Re: Waking Life: Existentialism
It makes it visually different than just a video. People who would find it unintresting as a video of just a guy talking, might pay a bit more attention to a cartoon talking about philosophy.
It may not appeal to you, but I bet it catches the attention of a lot more people than a plain video would.
Also it seems to me that these Waking Life things are often on the nature of reality. That being the case the visual style is kind of a compliment to the subject matter.
It may not appeal to you, but I bet it catches the attention of a lot more people than a plain video would.
Also it seems to me that these Waking Life things are often on the nature of reality. That being the case the visual style is kind of a compliment to the subject matter.
By: shorn
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Where you are getting confused is the idea that I would even need to "prove" that you have a mind to build a pragmatic working life model, and behavior.
Like many of the math laws we make it the rule that people have minds because that is what works. It is what makes the most sense now.
I may not be able to difinitively prove your intelligence, but 1) I don't have to , and 2) I need to decide something right now so that I can live my life. Just as we all do.
They say when you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras. There are lots of things that could be going on besides you having a mind. But there is no reason to believe them when we have a perfectly workable believable and simple solution at hand.
Should this fail us in the future or other evidence come to light well we can worry about that then. Until then I will just assume that there is a mind on the other end of this network because that is the most likely case.
Also you are trying to squish what I'm saying in Turing. Which is not the case at all. I am not saying that anything that can return a response to input has a mind. But rather that our mind is merely a response machine. One consists of the other, but the other does not equal the first :P
As for the chinese room argument, it's ridiculousness cracks me up. He compares himself exchanging meaningless symbology to the computer doing the same and says "hey look the computer isn't intelligent".
Like many of the math laws we make it the rule that people have minds because that is what works. It is what makes the most sense now.
I may not be able to difinitively prove your intelligence, but 1) I don't have to , and 2) I need to decide something right now so that I can live my life. Just as we all do.
They say when you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras. There are lots of things that could be going on besides you having a mind. But there is no reason to believe them when we have a perfectly workable believable and simple solution at hand.
Should this fail us in the future or other evidence come to light well we can worry about that then. Until then I will just assume that there is a mind on the other end of this network because that is the most likely case.
Also you are trying to squish what I'm saying in Turing. Which is not the case at all. I am not saying that anything that can return a response to input has a mind. But rather that our mind is merely a response machine. One consists of the other, but the other does not equal the first :P
As for the chinese room argument, it's ridiculousness cracks me up. He compares himself exchanging meaningless symbology to the computer doing the same and says "hey look the computer isn't intelligent".
By: shorn
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Firstly science doesn't only concern itself with the physical.
And secondly you are misdirecting with stuff that doesn't matter.
We don't need to see a mind and say"There it exists" to say we don't have free will. Furthermore referring to philosophical quandaries and people who are dead are not fit replacement for stating your point of v iew.
We know many of the physical properties of our body that result in our behavior. When you say "science can't prove that there is a mind" you are patently wrong. A mind is merely what we call the conscious manifestation of our biological programming. I know that I have a mind, or rather I know as far as I am able. And it is the easiest assumption that you have one as well. There is no point in wondering wether or not you do until such time comes where there would be evidence that shows that you might not. It's frivolous and useless to seriously consider.
Sure one might think of all kinds of possibilities in their leisure. But talk seriously to people and live ones life based upon the extreme limits of philosphy gives rise to things such as Nihilism.
Do we have minds? Yes, we do not need to see/hear/touch/taste/smell their existence to gather enough other circumstantial data to be sure enough of their existence.
Do we have free will?
Yes. Well pragmatically speaking anyways. We are built to deal with the physical world and our societies are built upon the premise that there is personal responsibility. Further more our programming is of such a complex nature that we cannot(yet atleast) fathom all the variables, and thus expose our programming.
No. In that our mind is merely a learning machine running it's algorithyms and trying to get us as best it's able to procreate. We are very complicated but from the day we are born to the day we die it's all 1's and 0's.
And secondly you are misdirecting with stuff that doesn't matter.
We don't need to see a mind and say"There it exists" to say we don't have free will. Furthermore referring to philosophical quandaries and people who are dead are not fit replacement for stating your point of v iew.
We know many of the physical properties of our body that result in our behavior. When you say "science can't prove that there is a mind" you are patently wrong. A mind is merely what we call the conscious manifestation of our biological programming. I know that I have a mind, or rather I know as far as I am able. And it is the easiest assumption that you have one as well. There is no point in wondering wether or not you do until such time comes where there would be evidence that shows that you might not. It's frivolous and useless to seriously consider.
Sure one might think of all kinds of possibilities in their leisure. But talk seriously to people and live ones life based upon the extreme limits of philosphy gives rise to things such as Nihilism.
Do we have minds? Yes, we do not need to see/hear/touch/taste/smell their existence to gather enough other circumstantial data to be sure enough of their existence.
Do we have free will?
Yes. Well pragmatically speaking anyways. We are built to deal with the physical world and our societies are built upon the premise that there is personal responsibility. Further more our programming is of such a complex nature that we cannot(yet atleast) fathom all the variables, and thus expose our programming.
No. In that our mind is merely a learning machine running it's algorithyms and trying to get us as best it's able to procreate. We are very complicated but from the day we are born to the day we die it's all 1's and 0's.
By: shorn
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Sure our behavior is subject to the physical laws that created us. We are just really complicated robots running our "I'm a human" program. But understanding that doesn't give a pragmatic solution to daily life.
One needs responsibility to live in a society. Maybe at some point we will understand all of the infinitesimal factors that go into making a person do what they do at any given time. But until that time we have to say "Hey you are responsible for what you do." Or we would never go anywhere or get anything done.
So sure find out what makes us tick. But until then we have free will. Or atleast a complex enough illusion of free will that it makes no difference.
One needs responsibility to live in a society. Maybe at some point we will understand all of the infinitesimal factors that go into making a person do what they do at any given time. But until that time we have to say "Hey you are responsible for what you do." Or we would never go anywhere or get anything done.
So sure find out what makes us tick. But until then we have free will. Or atleast a complex enough illusion of free will that it makes no difference.
By: shorn
I consider myself a fairly smart guy resistant to herd thinking, but I felt the same need to go to war as this guy and most people in the combat arms do. To prove myself to fight and kill the enemy and so forth.
No matter who you think you are the brainwashing(and there is no better word for it) that occurs while in the military will enable you if not push you to do things that you would not have otherwise done. And that is what you get to live with once the "glory" is over. This is a lesson we have failed to learn from Vietnam(if in truth our government has any wish to learn anything regarding this phenomena).
I spend so much time trying to tell people that those who are in the military are not heroes they are not paragons of whatever ideology or moral tendencies you may have. They are just folks. The same people you meet every day. Some of them are good, some bad, some smart some not. And making them into champions dehumanizes them and is in it's way as much a disservice to them as calling them killers.