In other news the NAS is reading this post!
Love the misogyny -- it's very modern. Phil Mason and Richard Dawkins would be proud of your contributions.
Some criticism, to improve your future pro-rape posts:
1) You did a great job calling the victim a "cunt", but instead of "I hope she gets sued" you should have written "I hope she gets raped" or better yet "if I saw her I'd rape her". Bonus points if you address your comments directly at the victim.
2) The victim did contact the police, a fact which has been pointed out numerous times in this discussion. When you distort the truth, make sure that no one can contradict your assertions!
An appeal to authority argument is only a logical fallacy in cases where the person isn't an expert, where there is no consensus, or where the appeal is based on deductive instead of inductive reasoning.
Perhaps if you had taken a course in logic, instead of reading a few "rationalist" blog sites, you'd understand why.
In the hacker community, the self-taught hacker is often better respected than his academically-shaped peer
That's just something autodidacts tell themselves to make themselves feel important.
and the reason has nothing to do with a disrespect of education
Sure about that? See any of the recent "is college useless" slashdot discussions.
but rather an implicit understanding that you just don't learn as well unless you're interested in the material and follow your own path through it.
That's the biggest problem with autodidacts. They tend to ignore important material that they don't have an interest in, don't immediately understand, or disagree with (because it doesn't appeal to their intuition or runs contrary to their existing beliefs.)
They end up believing themselves experts in a topic, when in reality they're less informed than a hipster Starbucks barista that took an undergrad course in the same subject.
Now, computer programming is a special case. Any kid can teach themselves computer programming -- hell, in the 80's, a lot of kids did! -- and even make a career out of it with very little effort. Just like a backyard mechanic can find work in a repair shop. The difference, of course, is that the mechanics don't fancy themselves engineers.
Programming is the easiest thing I've ever done. That a fact that many (most?) developers know but don't want to state publicly. They've got too much of their self-worth wrapped up in it. They want to continue to pretend that they're special in some way (more rational, intelligent, whatever) because they can write computer programs.
That insecurity is a problem only the autodidacts face. The educated take pride in what they've actually accomplished, not in the knowledge they have or the skills they've acquired. They know that anyone can learn (or learn to do) what they have learned, so they don't believe their knowledge and skills alone make them special or important.
Quote Eric S. Raymond all you want, but you won't find too much respect for autodidact "physicists" in the physics community or any in his silly little list of "academic areas". (I find it laughable that you refer to him as a "social anthropologist". He's not. Not even close. He's just another under-educated autodidact pandering to other under-educated autodidacts. It's sad, really.)
Yeah, because ASM is the only alternative. Eyeroll.
"Grandpa" is right. We've traded an awful lot of bloat for
He may not be willing to blame the languages outright, but I'd back him up if he did.
Each instruction contained within it the address of the next instruction--they weren't sequential--and "optimal assembly" was the process of calculating how long each instruction would take so that the next instruction could be placed at the right location on the drum that it would be almost under the head when the last instruction had completed. "Optimal assembly" was the memory placement aspect of it.
Please, a Real Programmer wouldn't even bother with a so-called "optimizing" assembler. Too inefficient. "You never know where it's going to put things, so you'd have to use separate constants."
Your post puts me in mind of Chuck Moore.
Are you sure? The Atari Mindlink was never actually released -- and read "forehead muscle movement" not "brainwaves".
There were a lots of ads for it though.
Let's start with your first point:
1. We can demonstrate that while a person is conscious, there is electrical activity in the brain.
Where's the evidence?
I can demonstrate both of these easily, but I'll need a willing participant, an EKG, and a gun.
I'll settle for a journal article.
You're quite right that I have no medical texts at my place of work, nor the inclination to go on a Google search to prove both of the above statements - it would be a waste of my time.
I agree. It's a waste of time as you won't find anything. That's my point.
If you disagree with them, say so. If you agree with them, say so.
I thought we were talking about facts and evidence, not my personal beliefs? What's your obsession with what I personally believe?
My guess? You're just avoiding the truth.
Which constituent part of "plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain" are you suggesting is incorrect?
Your claim: There exists "plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain".
Present some evidence to support that claim. If you're claim is true, this should be really really easy. That's dramatically different from your earlier claims, but I don't expect that you acknowledge a difference, so we'll roll with it for the time being. Once we get you to post something other than pure assertion, we'll work on deconstructing your original post.
Of course, it's impossible for you to meet that simply challenge as no such evidence exists. You won't believe that, of cousre, until your search turns up empty. I suspect by now that you've figured it out, which is why you STILL haven't offered any evidence in support of your claims.
Either you don't know what you believe, or you're too afraid to state it for fear of persecution or simply being provably wrong about something.
What I believe is irrelevant to the discussion. After all, what I believe will not alter my claim: that you presented baseless speculation as fact.
Arguing with you is boring.
What argument? I've only asked you for one thing: present evidence to support your claims which are obviously, as I asserted earlier, baseless speculation. You seem more concerned about my personal beliefs and motivations, which are completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. I suspect it's because you really don't like the conclusion you'll be forced to draw if you face my simple challenge head-on.
There is, however, plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain
Then present some. (This may be difficult for you as none actually exists.)
My assertions ARE the result of the scientific process.
Then present the evidence!
Actually, you have asserted something - you believe in life after death.
I made NO such assertion! Like the imaginary evidence you allude to above, you'll find that a quote from me making such an assertion does not exist.
Now, go do some reading. I'd say that you're in for a surprise, but I've already spoiled the ending.
Everything I've stated is a proven, testable fact. The mechanisms at play are established in current theory.
Absolute nonsense. Go ahead, try to support your assertions with established science. You'll find that it's impossible.
If you refer to results of the scientific process as "baseless speculation" then you have advanced a position - that being that you don't trust the scientific process.
Again, you're confused. Your assertions are NOT in any way the "results of the scientific process". You'll discover this as you try to address the challenge presented above.
Why are so many "defenders of science" scientifically illiterate?
However, aren't "you" just a software program that has been installed on some fancy biological hardware?
No, that's very outdated. Computationalism has been dead for a while now.
Ah, you're just confused. See, you've come to your conclusions from a set of metaphysical assumptions, which you've confused with "established medical and scientific fact".
That's why you can't actually support your assertions -- they're completely baseless!
If you have any contrary opinion, then you need to provide evidence to support YOUR position.
Again, you're confused. My thoughts and opinions on the larger issue are completely irrelevant, which is why I haven't advanced any position. You seem to think that by pointing out the obvious fact that your post was nothing but baseless speculation was an indictment of your claims or was made in support of the parent's. That's all in your imagination.
The only position I've advanced is that you presented baseless speculation as fact and that what the parent presented was also mere speculation.
I haven't made any baseless speculation.
Sure you did. See your earlier post.
Can you name one?
I suppose so, though it would be easier for you to just scroll up a bit.
consciousness is a temporary unstable state.
You can find more above.
The road to hell is paved with NAND gates. -- J. Gooding