i don't care if the entire universe is real, a computer simulation or an atom in a giant being.
hypothesise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that A is A and you have to go to work on monday. the last thing the current american society needs is a new kantian theory to overtake it.
i'm all about philosophy and learning as much as i can, but no matter what, existence exists. wish all you want, carrie anne-moss isn't going to magically appear, and your troubles won't disappear until you get off your ass.
hypothesise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that A is A and you have to go to work on monday.
Some might say you are slave to reason, but I say no - you have complete free will, and you may do as you wish. You DO NOT have to do ANYTHING! YOU are TRUELY FREE. Believe it and embrace.
That would be your choice, if you did nothing and died that would be up to you. If you got up off your arss, went and raped a woman, you'd be charged with sexual assult. If you got up off your arss, went and met a cute Korean (I prefer Japanese myself) girl, married and had kids; well You've Got Kids!.
You have to choose the life you want to live, then live it, that's all I can say to you; Just Live!
Cause and Effect. A is A. Rand was/is/and will forever be nuts. Al Gore is a loser, and a socialist! http://www.lp
Define free will? Is it the ability to do as you wish? This can't be true because the physical world impedes your activities. You can't travel as quickly as you wish, nor break as many laws as you wish indefinitely.
I would refine this to mean, given a set of instantaneous (time dependent) options, you may choose which-ever one you wish.. BUT, these options are not infinite nor continuous. Thus the physical world around you is limiting your choice. You are molded by your environment necessarily. Moreo
I may not be able to always change myself, but I can change others sometimes, if I'm clever enough. Free will is exercised during free time, if one internal drive does not dominate every other internal drive, and abstract reasoning does not suggest a dominant goal overwhelming every other goal so imagined. How people spend their free time can be up to them.
Nice thinking. I was recently reading a lengthy formal proof of the non-existence of free will. (I'd find a link but It's-Sunday-And-I'm-Too-Damn-Lazy)
Basically the gist of the argument was this: Only two conceivable types of events can happen in your brain: Deterministic (electrochemical meatware precisely obeying cause and effect), or non-deterministic (ie quantum level).
Obviously, deterministic events do not demonstrate free will, so we can safely disregard these.
For shits and giggles I played devil's advocate and argued that it's an unproven conjecture that our consciousness cannot influence quantum events. Could free will manifest itself by altering quantum probabilities?
Even if it could, it still wouldn't get you out of the dilemma you pose. A probabilistic consciousness doesn't provide you any more agency than a random consciousness. Let me go nuts here and engage in a little late night Slashdot philosophizing.:)
Of course we all appear to make choices, but the real question is, if everything could be reset to the exact same state, is it possible we could choose differently? Or is every choice we make an inevitable outcome, that could be predicted with 100% accuracy if (Huge, huge IF there) every variable could be accounted for?
"Obviously, deterministic events do not demonstrate free will, so we can safely disregard these."
"Why?"
A deterministic system can be theoretically predicted given enough information. T
Is every choice we make an inevitable outcome, that could be predicted with 100% accuracy if (Huge, huge IF there) every variable could be accounted for?
I don't think predictability has to be at odds with free will. Again, for me, it's all wrapped up in the idea of identity.
Think of a choice you made once, a choice you'd like a chance to relive, and perhaps choose differently this time around. Think about the thoughts you had at the time that made you choose the way you did.
I don't think predictability has to be at odds with free will.
Well, I think I would respectfully disagree with that, but perhaps this revolves around different ways of defining "free will", an elusive term if there ever was one. (The proof I mentioned offers a concrete definition) In any case, I don't think it's something we're going to solve here:) Thanks for the stimulating discussion though.
If you are interested, I looked up the original proof and discussion I have been referring to, it can be fou
In your simulated world, you understand the concept of Monday.
why should anyone present a simulation of such a mediocre world to an envatted mind year after year? Anyone with that much computational power would have loftier goals.
In The Truman Show, Truman is kept on his island but it takes so much trouble to keep him there. The speed of light is one of the barriers that keeps the universe as we know it from taking on all kinds of bizarre states.
Do we have simulators living in a universe free of such res
This whole simulation theorizing is closely related to the concept of free will (or its non-existence). The hardware on which we "run" doesn't really matter, whether it's the "real" world as we perceive it or an advanced computer. Our nature is important. If you don't have free will, well, why bother? Whatever you think or choose is not your thought or choice. It may be that not everything is predetermined, but if that's not due to free will, then it's simply random. An entirely non-metaphysical (or simply
It may be that not everything is predetermined, but if that's not due to free will, then it's simply random.
Why random? Is a finite automata's output random given it's input sequence? If so, then how could we trust the unix tool grep? Does grep choose to report a line even though it wasn't pre-determined? Could there be a malignant deamon inside my computer (possibly a virus) which causes it to fabricate results.. Simply print out a line with the sought word, wherein the line never exist
On the contrary, I don't have to work on Monday and American society and "Kantian" theory don't exist in any meaningful way. I do think that psychological pain and misery are extremely hard to deny- perhaps they're the only things real? Chances are good that your troubles won't disappear even if you do "get off your ass." Carrie Ann-Moss is apparently a real person, and who knows? you might very well meet her. Why are you so defensive anyway- doesn't your attitude suggest that perhaps you should stop and re
if you don't have to work on monday, it's because you are either rich enough as you don't have to, you're making an excuse to the fact you have monday off, or you're a slack-assed slive of shit.
if your troubles don't disappear after getting off your ass, i think it's time to recognize your actual problems. 99.9% of problems in people's lives are of their own making and undertaking.
regardless, i know who i am, and why i am where i'm at. the rest of you parasites are j
But do you know who you are, randroid? Or are you just mimicking philosophy from popular throwaway-novels? You're still wet from the mold, as far as I can tell. If you can't be bothered to think for yourself, perhaps you should take up the socialist flag instead. It's much more amusing.
There is never a large enough supply of that recurring holier-than-thou internet type who loves to come onto messageboards and solve everyone's lives through lectures stating how "99.9%" of people's problems are entirely their fault, and that they should "get off their asses." There are few things more annoying then someone who must frantically remind everyone of how self-responsible they feel in order to convince themselves that they don't have weakness. Aggressiveness is an essential point to that prese
It is tragic in a way, though, that such a type must obviously must bolster their self-esteem by appearing so self-sufficient that they aggressively accuse others of not being in charge of their situations. One has to wonder what their obvious insecurities stem from. In any case, it was a nice troll, but clearly lacking in self-awareness.
Well put! I was going to reply myself but I think that pretty much summed up all my complaints about both the original poster, Ayn Rand and randites in general.
I was raised on - well, I raised myself on - Buckminster Fuller, The Kids Whole Earth Future Catalog, various forms of philosophy from purely materialist to purely spiritualist and everything in between - not excluding existentialist, of course.
And then I read "The Story of B [everything2.com]", and realized I was just seeing the edges of the box. From the inside.
See: http://www.ishmael.com/ for more info.
The world we have created is a product of our thinking. It canno
Record unemployment since the Great Depression. Worse for those working in technology sector, and you blame them for not working on Monday. Way to make friends on Slashdot! (or do you have enough simulated friends?)
hypothesise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that A is A and you have to go to work on monday. the last thing the current american society needs is a new kantian theory to overtake it.
Actually the "fact" a is a and that you have to go to work on monday are only "facts" because you agree with them. So they are really opinions. And speaking as an american citizen fed up with the excess and lies of this country I would gladly see a theory, any theory, that brought about non violent change in the way
Hope is accepting that your current reality is just a curtain, a hindrance to be overcome. We should all strive for what's behind it.
You wish for people to stagnate because you feel insecure about your situation in life, and rather than face the hopelessness of trying to change it, you choose a laughable definition for "peace" and aggressively go after others with terms like "jagoff."
And speaking as an american citizen fed up with the excess and lies of this country I would gladly see a theory, any theory, that brought about non violent change in the way we live our lives.
Here's the theory for you: it's called "maturity".
When you grow up and stop waiting for "theories" to change your life, and get off your ass and start being productive, you will find that the world is a much better place. Sorry dude, but the socialistic paradise that you want where the government provides for all
The beauty of these ideas is that most of the people who espouse it don't seem to work very hard at all. Yeah, like schmoozing all day, power-lunches, being entertained by sales people, getting their asses kissed by underlings.
When they get home on weekend they take back their kids from their foreign au-pairs and look over their carefully manicured lawn maintained by Mexicans.
No really, the people who REALLY work their asses off (blue-collar) get tired and don't have time (away from their kids who they t
I'm going to take the, "it doesn't matter so long as you have free will" statement one step further and say... It doesn't matter if you have free will or not. What matters is that you don't know. Tell me, what's the difference? You may be destined to decide to take the rotten apple tomorrow... but it doesn't matter... because you didn't KNOW you were destined to get the rotten apple. As far as you're concerned, you made a real decision to take that apple. Barring religious ramifications (the contexts of
yes, instead let's opt for the 'oh boohoo it's not my fault' ideal.
this is the last thread i'm going to bother replying to until i wake up sunday, but let me tell you, it's people like you that practically beg to not be blamed for your own sloth that are ruining the human race one by one.
even if i -am- wrong, and there is no free will by some sort of oogie-boogie god that you can't prove by any means, it doesn't matter. nobody respects a looter or a slacker except the same.
You're staying up too late. I said it doesn't matter if there is free will or not. As far as everyone knows, we do. Which means we can only function on the idea that all people are responsible for their actions. You just flamed me irresponsibly for arguing the same thing you believe.
Perhaps you should attempt basic comprehension skills before you flame someone for arguing the very same thing you believe. It shows the weakness of your mind.
You mask your disappointments and insecurities by convincing yourself you have accepted your situation, and therefore have no problems or weakness. To continue the facade requires constant feeding of the ego, which you placate with badly spelled ramblings toward other people who possess imagination and hope. Whereas you would convince yourself tha
Not only has everyone seen TV shows and movies illustrating that, but it happens in everyone's brains all the time. Go read #5 of the Reith Lectures 2003 [bbc.co.uk] by Vilayanur S Ramachandran [bbc.co.uk]. Zen Buddhism's claim to enable the practitioner to "live in the present" seems to be connected with these phenomena, and seems to have actual foundations in the material phenomena in the brain. Everybody interested, go read Zen and the Brain [mit.edu] by James H. Austin [uidaho.edu]
I agree, the most annoying thing about the article "How to live in a simulation" is that it makes the classical IMHO erronous assumption that the simulator (the entity that controls the simulation) is basically like us.
This text roughtly assumes that the simulator is basically an american guy and the main reason for simulating a universe is to go to a party. Very deep philosophy. The simulator might well be a zen poet two centuries in the future interested in the pattern of human emotions, or some alien student trying to build the most absurd form of life. There is simply no way to know. So trying to please this simulator is completely absurd.
The talk about seeing the weaknesses in the simulation because certain parts are not simulated also takes the wrong perspective. Assuming you build a simulation that is not homogenous, you will make sure that the where there are simplifications they will have little influence (i.e they are not noticable). As for the hypothesis that certain people are not true, I don't like when people start talking about true/chosen/über/whatever people.
This is just some guy projecting his own bias on some theoretical entity and using this to justify his own (egoistic I might add) approach to live as being "logical". I agree that this is not what american society needs, but I fear it is what it wants. Of course, this has been the stuff of religions for centuries, replace simulator by god and voilà!
I agree, the most annoying thing about the article "How to live in a simulation" is that it makes the classical IMHO erronous assumption that the simulator (the entity that controls the simulation) is basically like us.
Umm, no it doesn't. I don't remember reading anything about the motivations of the simulation authors. Anyway, there doesn't need to be a story about why they build the simulation. Maybe you should read the article again.
is that everyone responsible watched "Office Space." The timing is too perfect to be a simple coincidence.
Peter: Uh, so I go through these thousands of lines of code and, uh.. it doesn't really matter. I don't like my job, and I don't think I'm gonna go anymore. Joanna: You're just not gonna go? Peter: Yeah. Joanna: Won't you get fired? Peter: I don't know. But I really don't like it.. and I'm not gonna go. Joanna: So you're gonna quit? Peter: Nuh-uh. Not really. I'm just gonna stop going.
hypothesise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that A is A and you have to go to work on monday.
Nobody said it did.
Everybody must have some sort of delusional idea of what reality is -- whether there's a god, a heaven, a hell, a cadre of alien souls in locked into our brains by Xenu, whether we're in a computer simulation, whether everyone else on earth is a robot built to entertain us, whether dragons really exist, whether it's ok to hate certain people, whether it's ok to ignore other people's
hypothesise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that A is A
Well, technically, the A on left of your 'is' is different from the A on the right of your 'is', as 1) its location on my monitor is different 2) the time you typed them was different. You can call me a nitpick now.
hypothesise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that A is A and you have to go to work on monday. the last thing the current american society needs is a new kantian theory to overtake it.
No matter what the "true" structure of the world is, whether there is an objective reality behind it or not, the fact remains that in order to survive and function in the world one needs to pretty much live ones life as if A truly equals A.
Any amount of philosophizing notwithstanding, if you are walking towards a b
She is refering to the show Maxheadroom -- Which I believe originated in the UK and was redone for the states, and the line she's reffering to is from the us release. I think. Or I could google for it, but this is slashdot so i'll post AC and let somone else correct me if i'm wrong.
Well, letting the ground come up and smite me is a bit tricky -- I'm already immortal as has been evidenced by my failure to die 10 times in my life (as estimated by me.) Oh and being immortal is not all it's cracked up to be. Sure I don't break bones, but I still cut and bleed normally. Sure I can breathe in toxic vapours and ingest poisons strong enough to kill an elephant and still end up only feeling slightly sick.. but I still have alergies. And I do get sick, although it's pretty infrequent, and ge
Uhh, maybe you should do some more philosophy learning. Your alleged objection to this work shows a profound misunderstanding of it. Nobody said that chicks in catsuits are going to start appearing.
If you read the Chalmers paper, you'd see that living in a simulation does not make the objects around us any less real than outside the simulation... although I'm not sure I'm convinced by that argument...
Repeating tautologies like A is A is only a good move if you're writing a script for a movie for idiots,
Keep in mind that Kant was saying 'You cannot perceive that which exists apart from the restrictive framework imposed by your physical senses'. In a nutshell, we cannot truly *know* anything, even ourselves, because we only have our mind and senses with which to do that, and they are limited.
But I seriously doubt anything 'new' and 'Kantian' is going to overtake American society. Society doesn't care about real philosophy, just the watered down lip=service the movies give it so it sounds hip. Anglo-ame
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
screw it. (Score:4, Insightful)
hypothesise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that A is A and you have to go to work on monday. the last thing the current american society needs is a new kantian theory to overtake it.
i'm all about philosophy and learning as much as i can, but no matter what, existence exists. wish all you want, carrie anne-moss isn't going to magically appear, and your troubles won't disappear until you get off your ass.
have to (Score:1)
Some might say you are slave to reason, but I say no - you have complete free will, and you may do as you wish. You DO NOT have to do ANYTHING! YOU are TRUELY FREE. Believe it and embrace.
Re:have to (Score:0)
If you got up off your arss, went and raped a woman, you'd be charged with sexual assult.
If you got up off your arss, went and met a cute Korean (I prefer Japanese myself) girl, married and had kids; well You've Got Kids!.
You have to choose the life you want to live, then live it, that's all I can say to you; Just Live!
Cause and Effect.
A is A.
Rand was/is/and will forever be nuts.
Al Gore is a loser, and a socialist!
http://www.lp
Re:have to (Score:1)
Re:have to (Score:3, Insightful)
I would refine this to mean, given a set of instantaneous (time dependent) options, you may choose which-ever one you wish.. BUT, these options are not infinite nor continuous. Thus the physical world around you is limiting your choice. You are molded by your environment necessarily. Moreo
How about begged, borrowed, or stolen will? (Score:0)
Re:have to (Score:2)
Basically the gist of the argument was this: Only two conceivable types of events can happen in your brain: Deterministic (electrochemical meatware precisely obeying cause and effect), or non-deterministic (ie quantum level).
Obviously, deterministic events do not demonstrate free will, so we can safely disregard these.
Which leaves us with non-determinis
Re:have to (Score:1)
determinism = free will? (Score:2)
Even if it could, it still wouldn't get you out of the dilemma you pose. A probabilistic consciousness doesn't provide you any more agency than a random consciousness. Let me go nuts here and engage in a little late night Slashdot philosophizing.
Obviously, deterministic events do not demon
Re:determinism = free will? (Score:2)
"Obviously, deterministic events do not demonstrate free will, so we can safely disregard these."
"Why?"
A deterministic system can be theoretically predicted given enough information. T
Re:determinism = free will? (Score:2)
I don't think predictability has to be at odds with free will. Again, for me, it's all wrapped up in the idea of identity.
Think of a choice you made once, a choice you'd like a chance to relive, and perhaps choose differently this time around. Think about the thoughts you had at the time that made you choose the way you did.
Now, if you'd had different t
Re:determinism = free will? (Score:2)
Well, I think I would respectfully disagree with that, but perhaps this revolves around different ways of defining "free will", an elusive term if there ever was one. (The proof I mentioned offers a concrete definition) In any case, I don't think it's something we're going to solve here
If you are interested, I looked up the original proof and discussion I have been referring to, it can be fou
Re:screw it. (Score:0)
But......There is no spoon...n/t (Score:1)
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
*ducks away*
Re:screw it. (Score:1)
why should anyone present a simulation of such a mediocre world to an envatted mind year after year? Anyone with that much computational power would have loftier goals.
In The Truman Show, Truman is kept on his island but it takes so much trouble to keep him there. The speed of light is one of the barriers that keeps the universe as we know it from taking on all kinds of bizarre states.
Do we have simulators living in a universe free of such res
Re:screw it. (Score:0)
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
It may be that not everything is predetermined, but if that's not due to free will, then it's simply random.
Why random? Is a finite automata's output random given it's input sequence? If so, then how could we trust the unix tool grep? Does grep choose to report a line even though it wasn't pre-determined? Could there be a malignant deamon inside my computer (possibly a virus) which causes it to fabricate results.. Simply print out a line with the sought word, wherein the line never exist
screw you (Score:1)
Re:screw you (Score:0, Troll)
if you don't have to work on monday, it's because you are either rich enough as you don't have to, you're making an excuse to the fact you have monday off, or you're a slack-assed slive of shit.
if your troubles don't disappear after getting off your ass, i think it's time to recognize your actual problems. 99.9% of problems in people's lives are of their own making and undertaking.
regardless, i know who i am, and why i am where i'm at. the rest of you parasites are j
Re:screw you (Score:0)
Re:screw you (Score:0)
I spend most of Monday morning taking one big long shit, and then wiping my ass with a few pages from The Fountainhead.
A critical dissertation of the self-sufficient (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Re:A critical dissertation of the self-sufficient (Score:2)
Well put! I was going to reply myself but I think that pretty much summed up all my complaints about both the original poster, Ayn Rand and randites in general.
There are
Re:A critical dissertation of the self-sufficient (Score:0)
I used to think that I thought "outside the box".
I was raised on - well, I raised myself on - Buckminster Fuller, The Kids Whole Earth Future Catalog, various forms of philosophy from purely materialist to purely spiritualist and everything in between - not excluding existentialist, of course.
And then I read " The Story of B [everything2.com]", and realized I was just seeing the edges of the box. From the inside.
See: http://www.ishmael.com/ for more info.
The world we have created is a product of our thinking. It canno
h0h0h0 (Score:0)
What's a slive? (Score:1)
Re:screw it. (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually the "fact" a is a and that you have to go to work on monday are only "facts" because you agree with them. So they are really opinions. And speaking as an american citizen fed up with the excess and lies of this country I would gladly see a theory, any theory, that brought about non violent change in the way
Re:screw it. (Score:0, Flamebait)
try to travel back in time and fix it, jagoff.
peace is accepting reality. about the same time you do that, you may be able to stop spouting off.
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
You wish for people to stagnate because you feel insecure about your situation in life, and rather than face the hopelessness of trying to change it, you choose a laughable definition for "peace" and aggressively go after others with terms like "jagoff."
It's the saddest thing I've ever seen.
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
And speaking as an american citizen fed up with the excess and lies of this country I would gladly see a theory, any theory, that brought about non violent change in the way we live our lives.
Here's the theory for you: it's called "maturity".
When you grow up and stop waiting for "theories" to change your life, and get off your ass and start being productive, you will find that the world is a much better place. Sorry dude, but the socialistic paradise that you want where the government provides for all
Re:screw it. (Score:1)
When they get home on weekend they take back their kids from their foreign au-pairs and look over their carefully manicured lawn maintained by Mexicans.
No really, the people who REALLY work their asses off (blue-collar) get tired and don't have time (away from their kids who they t
Re:screw it. (Score:1)
It doesn't matter if you have free will or not. What matters is that you don't know. Tell me, what's the difference? You may be destined to decide to take the rotten apple tomorrow... but it doesn't matter... because you didn't KNOW you were destined to get the rotten apple. As far as you're concerned, you made a real decision to take that apple. Barring religious ramifications (the contexts of
Re:screw it. (Score:0, Troll)
this is the last thread i'm going to bother replying to until i wake up sunday, but let me tell you, it's people like you that practically beg to not be blamed for your own sloth that are ruining the human race one by one.
even if i -am- wrong, and there is no free will by some sort of oogie-boogie god that you can't prove by any means, it doesn't matter. nobody respects a looter or a slacker except the same.
go ahead, start telling me how
Re:screw it. (Score:1)
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
You mask your disappointments and insecurities by convincing yourself you have accepted your situation, and therefore have no problems or weakness. To continue the facade requires constant feeding of the ego, which you placate with badly spelled ramblings toward other people who possess imagination and hope. Whereas you would convince yourself tha
Re:screw it. (Score:1)
Zen Buddhism's claim to enable the practitioner to "live in the present" seems to be connected with these phenomena, and seems to have actual foundations in the material phenomena in the brain. Everybody interested, go read Zen and the Brain [mit.edu] by James H. Austin [uidaho.edu]
Re:screw it. (Score:5, Interesting)
This text roughtly assumes that the simulator is basically an american guy and the main reason for simulating a universe is to go to a party. Very deep philosophy. The simulator might well be a zen poet two centuries in the future interested in the pattern of human emotions, or some alien student trying to build the most absurd form of life. There is simply no way to know. So trying to please this simulator is completely absurd.
The talk about seeing the weaknesses in the simulation because certain parts are not simulated also takes the wrong perspective. Assuming you build a simulation that is not homogenous, you will make sure that the where there are simplifications they will have little influence (i.e they are not noticable). As for the hypothesis that certain people are not true, I don't like when people start talking about true/chosen/über/whatever people.
This is just some guy projecting his own bias on some theoretical entity and using this to justify his own (egoistic I might add) approach to live as being "logical". I agree that this is not what american society needs, but I fear it is what it wants. Of course, this has been the stuff of religions for centuries, replace simulator by god and voilà!
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
Umm, no it doesn't. I don't remember reading anything about the motivations of the simulation authors. Anyway, there doesn't need to be a story about why they build the simulation. Maybe you should read the article again.
No kidding. Reason for current economic struggles (Score:2)
Peter: Uh, so I go through these thousands of lines of code and, uh.. it doesn't really matter. I don't like my job, and I don't think I'm gonna go anymore.
Joanna: You're just not gonna go?
Peter: Yeah.
Joanna: Won't you get fired?
Peter: I don't know. But I really don't like it.. and I'm not gonna go.
Joanna: So you're gonna quit?
Peter: Nuh-uh. Not really. I'm just gonna stop going.
Joanna:
Re:screw it. (Score:1, Interesting)
hypothesise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that A is A and you have to go to work on monday.
Nobody said it did.
Everybody must have some sort of delusional idea of what reality is -- whether there's a god, a heaven, a hell, a cadre of alien souls in locked into our brains by Xenu, whether we're in a computer simulation, whether everyone else on earth is a robot built to entertain us, whether dragons really exist, whether it's ok to hate certain people, whether it's ok to ignore other people's
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
Well, technically, the A on left of your 'is' is different from the A on the right of your 'is', as 1) its location on my monitor is different 2) the time you typed them was different. You can call me a nitpick now.
That's not what A=A means! (Score:0)
Cow-1 != Cow-2
Go read what Sam said.
Re:screw it. (Score:0)
Re:screw it. (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter what the "true" structure of the world is, whether there is an objective reality behind it or not, the fact remains that in order to survive and function in the world one needs to pretty much live ones life as if A truly equals A.
Any amount of philosophizing notwithstanding, if you are walking towards a b
Re:screw it. (Score:0)
i am reminded of the situation where one knows that life is meaningless, but the zen trick is living as though it meant something.
determining whether that situation has meaning or not is left as an exercise to MsGeek
fred
"Thirty minutes into the future is NOW..." (Score:1)
Re:"Thirty minutes into the future is NOW..." (Score:0)
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
Oh and being immortal is not all it's cracked up to be. Sure I don't break bones, but I still cut and bleed normally. Sure I can breathe in toxic vapours and ingest poisons strong enough to kill an elephant and still end up only feeling slightly sick.. but I still have alergies. And I do get sick, although it's pretty infrequent, and ge
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
If you read the Chalmers paper, you'd see that living in a simulation does not make the objects around us any less real than outside the simulation... although I'm not sure I'm convinced by that argument...
Repeating tautologies like A is A is only a good move if you're writing a script for a movie for idiots,
Re:screw it. (Score:2)
Huzzah!! It's a holiday in the commonwealth on monday!
Re:screw it. (Score:0)