Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - FON

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Moving Pictures / Re: The last movie you watched?
« on: November 30, 2014, 05:17:15 am »
interstellar. worth it.

2
Politics: Left, Right, and Center / Re: Guns R gud
« on: November 29, 2014, 11:34:39 pm »
lol, how long will dumb ass americans cling to the idea that guns are somehow doing their society more good than harm.

3
Moving Pictures / Re: Evil Dead (TV series)
« on: November 18, 2014, 01:00:37 pm »
He's pretty fucking old now, isn't he? Bruce Campbell, that is.

4
The Great Outdoors / Re: Fishing
« on: November 13, 2014, 11:21:50 pm »
I do. That's just a random knife that floats around outside.

5
The Great Outdoors / Re: Fishing
« on: November 13, 2014, 12:51:16 pm »
Caught my first mangrove jack the other night. Got snapped off under the rocks by one earlier on but managed to land this one with the help of a friend later. Shit was hectic.


6
Oh the Humanities! / Re: Living Reality
« on: November 13, 2014, 11:44:46 am »
Did you mean "the source of indeterminism is non-physical"? I'm not quite sure I follow this part. Thought I did but smoked a cone and read it again, now I don't.

So indeterminism is when something behaves in a way that isn't caused by the past. So like whether a radioactive element has decayed or not, quantum mechanics predicts a probabilistic timeline for its decay but until we observe it somehow, it's said to be in a super state. When we observe it, it takes on either the decayed or non-decayed state. If we accept an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics (not all are) then we're also committed to saying which state it takes on is not dependent on the past beyond some probability distribution. Like if we knew absolutely everything about the universe now, we still couldn't say for certain which state a decaying element will be the next time we observe it.

But when observation happens and a concrete state is realized is the only juncture where the future can be changed, because everything else is deterministic (this is actually a tautology, put differently "all things which are not indeterministic are deterministic"). So what is it that decides which state is realized? I don't know, I'm not a quantum physicist, maybe the question is malformed. But one thing we can say isn't the answer with certainty (based on our assumption of indeterminism) is anything in the past (the physical world). If the state a decaying atom is in depends on something I did then the world is deterministic, if it doesn't then I can't have any effect on it. Thus indeterminism gives us no more of a possibility of free will than determinism does.

Sort of like, as the decay of the radiation (or events in an indeterministic world) is based on a probability it can't be said that we have any real control?

7
Oh the Humanities! / Re: Living Reality
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:59:54 am »
How do you explain away quantum randomness in a deterministic universe? Some argue that it has no effect at the macro level but I seem to recall reading numerous articles that refuted this claim.

I'd be interested to read those articles if you have links.

I don't, but I found them through a pretty basic google search.

Quote
Regardless though, indeterminism doesn't allow for libertarian free will any more than determinism does. I posted about this better somewhere but fuck if I'm going to look it up. Basically the logic is this: Accepting physical indeterminism means rejecting a hidden variable interpretation of quantum mechanics. Naturalism holds that everything we are is emergent from physical parts. If there is no hidden variable then the source of determinism is non-physical (if it wasn't it'd just be a hidden variable). Thus the source of indeterminism is non-us (since we're physical), thus we have no free will because we can no more alter the future in this proposed indeterministic world than a deterministic one.

Did you mean "the source of indeterminism is non-physical"? I'm not quite sure I follow this part. Thought I did but smoked a cone and read it again, now I don't.


8
Oh the Humanities! / Re: Living Reality
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:17:43 am »
And I'm starved for marijuana. Will read again later when I get baked.

9
Oh the Humanities! / Re: Living Reality
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:14:55 am »
Ah, gotcha...i think

10
Moving Pictures / Re: The last movie you watched?
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:12:15 am »
Inferno

Not as good as Suspiria, but still a decent flick, especially if you've got a soft spot for witches like me. Will be finishing Argento's film series 'The Three Mothers' this weekend.

11
Moving Pictures / Evil Dead (TV series)
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:09:51 am »
Apparently a 10 episode season of Evil Dead is coming out in 2015, complete with Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi calling the shots. Personally, I'm pretty excited, but this could go either way.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/groovy-evil-dead-tv-show-starring-bruce-campbell-will-premiere-in-2015-20141110

12
Travellers Travails / Re: Anyone backpacked ? advice?
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:06:05 am »
I backpacked the US for quite a few months while I was on the run, 3 pairs of clothes in the bag plus what I had on, a laptop, some random shit and about 5 grand, started around philly, made my way through every state south to Florida then across to Arizona, then back up through the Midwest it was fucking awesome, I was couch surfing I guess you could say, free pussy and housing lol fuck yeah... my advice; have a good time man backpacking is the shit n I definitely want to do it again... free piece of advice never keep all your cash in one place I know your not in mexico but its a good precautionary measure (I.e. sock, multiple pockets etc.) anywhere... a nice little knife is never a bad idea either

I usually keep my money separate from my wallet. In poorer countries where street hustlers heckle you every couple of meters it pays to have an empty wallet that you can flash around. As soon as they see an empty wallet they scatter and don't want anything to do with you.

13
Science of the Damned / Re: Proof Monsanto is evil
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:03:57 am »
GURTS-type seeds were never actually produced outside of testing and were never sold

Terminators were never actually sold as far as I know; there was a massive uproar when they were developed but that's about it.

Yeah, that's correct. Terminator seeds are patented, but not commercialised. It seems that most of the complaints that people have about Monsanto don't seem to be anywhere near as significant as people claim. I wish I could still access zoklet to bring up the old thread I made on GM food. Had some relevant information in it.

14
Oh the Humanities! / Re: Living Reality
« on: November 11, 2014, 03:59:26 am »
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits:[36][39][40]
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.,[36]
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[41][42] or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[42]




So, now that we have established that parameters for what constitutes a living thing, do any of these apply to the stimulus of "reality".

Reality is static. Changes in the perception of reality are just that, a change in the viewers perception, not in reality. A pair of blue scissors will ALWAYS be blue, based on the science of reflected and absorbed light of various wavelengths.  Any other color perceived by a viewer signifies a change in their processing of the stimulus, not a change in the stimulus itself.

1. Homeostasis - no. reality does not have any control over itself, therefore it cannot have homeostasis. it does not seek to maintain any sort of biological balance of function.

2. Organization. Nope. It is not composed of cells, in fact, it has no concrete composition.

3. Metabolism.  Reality does not metabolize or create energy.

4. Growth. reality is static. it doesn't grow or shrink, only our perception of it and our awareness of it's individual components.

5.


I could go on to do all 7, but there's no point. If it fails to meet the criteria for one it fails them all. 


Reality is not alive. /thread.

I stated all this many posts ago and we have since moved on to discussing the relationship between ourselves, our minds, the universe, reality, and energy.


I hope you have some master's level or better Chemists and Physicists to help chime in on this discussion or we will be chasing our tails for a long time :(


Einstein couldn't even get those relationships right man.

PS - Free will doesn't exist. With sophisticated enough mathematics and computation technology you could quantify every factor at work on a person influencing their decision making process and pick their decision before they did. We are all at the mercy of ourselves.

How do you explain away quantum randomness in a deterministic universe? Some argue that it has no effect at the macro level but I seem to recall reading numerous articles that refuted this claim.

15
Science of the Damned / Re: Proof Monsanto is evil
« on: November 11, 2014, 03:41:04 am »

I'm not fretting anything.  There is no way to prove what you're asking.  What in your mind qualifies as evil? What in your mind justifies a ban?

Quote
I'm sure you know what he's talking about, but regardless:

popular sentiment, especially with the anti-GM crowd is that Monsanto willfully and knowingly sells unsafe and unhealthy food products, and actively engages in anti-competitive and otherwise corrupt behaviour.

I used to believe it myself, but the more I've read about it the less it seems to hold true, at least compared to many other large companies.

Thanks for explaining that to Obbe. I thought it was incredibly obvious what I was talking about but Obbe isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, and he has a history of letting his butthurt cloud his reason.

lol at "what in your mind justifies a ban". Seriously? How are you not a failed abortion?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21