The fundamental mistake physicalists make is to assume physics is the full, accurate and complete model of the physical (i.e. of reality). Physics makes no such claim at all. In fact, they are still searching for the GUT,...
While there is some disagreement on the meaning of Physicalism it certainly doesn't include thinking the current laws of physics are complete. Who would make such a ludacrious claim.
Your explanation is deeply flawed. The mistake you are making is assuming Physicalism as the zero-state, when it is clearly the more restrictive model by an extreme amount and hence would actually need extraordinary proof in its favor. What you are doing is junk-science. And hence it is a pure belief without rational basis. In fact, it also has some rather strong aspects of a mental illness as it denies individual existence.
Looks like I touched a nerve. All I said is one can take the position of Dualism to avoid your fundamental problems with Physicalism but require extraordinary evidence to actually invoke any meaningful aspects of Dualism. I guess you claim that the extraordinary evidence is already reached, but I need something more than thought experiments based on folk psychology.
As to effects surgery, drugs, or even a simple blindfold, dualism does not say a persons existence is entirely outside of physical reality at all. Concrete memory, for example, is clearly mostly or completely physical. Dualism just says that a part of what we perceive as ourselves is non-physical. Incidentally, that the brain is somehow connected to thought is trivially obvious. It does act as interface to the world, after all.
So as experiments point to more and more aspects of the mind physically related to the brain you will drop more and more of your dualistic claims. Perhaps you should study more neuroscience. The split brain experiments are very interesting.
That does tell us exactly nothing about where that though happens and what the nature of the person having it is. Seriously, you are like a child claiming that her iPhone is intelligent, because Siri lives in it.
More like a child who is waiting to learn (or discover) a scientific definition of thought and intelligence before spouting off nonsense about them.
Incidentally, you do not know that your brain is creating intelligence and insight.
We do know that all kinds of chemicals, surgery, and accidents that effect the brain also effect how people think. As for giving Physicalism the pejorative term of religion, I could easily subscribe to Dualism but require an overwhelming amount of evidence to support examples where Physicalism is insufficient. To the contrary, we have overwhelming evidence that the brain is causally connected to thought, so there is currently no need to invent non-physical causes.
This article is the real deal as they do address what types of optimization problems and give bounds on the speedups over previous techniques. In addition, cutting plane techniques have proven to be very successful at solving integer programming problems and have yielded good/optimal solutions to large NP-hard problems such as traveling salesman.
As for the NFL theorem, it's not very surprising. By looking over all optimization problems you are considering an enormous set of functions. The "average" function in this set is going to look like noise. In the discrete case, NFL just amounts to finding the minimum value in an array. As we all know, you have to look at all the values to guarantee you found the minimum.
So if woman are better at languages then there are differences (surprise) between the sexes. If you open that door, maybe men are better at programming.
You've forgotten to add the effect of automation on prices. Suppose you automate away half the jobs at a factory, saving half your wage bill. Given that manufactured goods are a highly competitive industry, your increased margins are hardly likely to last, so the increase in profits gets competed away. That means that the labour cost saving is being passed to consumers: that's how the "profits" (that is to say, lower prices) flow to consumers.
So in the limit, if all the jobs are replaced by robots then the goods should be priced at the cost of the materials. This is still too high for someone who doesn't make any money.
This makes no sense. If consumers are the bottleneck, then who's buying to create the taxable profits in the first place?
If things continue to head in the same direction, this is where we'll end up. Fortunately there is still time to increase the taxes on things like capital gains or high bracket incomes. Ideally we would have more asset taxation since income tax largely is spent on protecting American assets. (Some assets more than others.)
Ok, you obviously have the proof on hand that says otherwise, so bring it to the table or blow it out your ass.
Let's see, the directors word from his mouth or speculation from your ass...
Why is this insightful? Shouldn't this comment have a low moderation value. A high moderation leads people into wasting their time look at this post and into a parent post who needed some help. Why should anyone else care.
Of course this is not the fault of the parent or the poster. Is moderation really this crappy? I guess moderators want to moderate something in this article and there just aren't any good posts.
This doesn't make much sense. If the support for data plans is expensive then just refuse to give data support for people who don't have data plans. Of course, there is the associated cost of dealing with them on the phone and refusing to help. This could be offset by offering them a minimal data plan or a data support plan.
The real reason ATT doesn't want people to use this option is that lots of people would drop their data plans. There's a lot of wifi around and many people would be satisfied with just wifi. I guess this opens up an opportunity for someone to come up with a way to get a phone to report a false id to the cell phone company.
Nice example of equivocation. I say why not give the proper incentives to companies as in incentive to do something, and you change it to a regulatory incentive used by the government to get people to behave in "desirable" ways. While I am proposing government regulation, it is not some arbitrary incentive but is instead a way to correct for externalities.
I guess you include paying a lot less as a more efficient way of paying for roads. I was confused as to what you meant as you said we're not going to get out of paying for it.
As for changing the regulatory framework, I claim that can be reasonably free market. It's a relatively easy way to deal with these types of market externalities. It's not too controversial to claim that a free market needs government interventation to create the market. I would also claim that includes correcting for these types of externalities.
Not very free market of you. Why not give the proper incentives to companies to do less damage to the roads.
Hoarding the money in tax havens and other such things essentially makes it useless to the economy.
Right. Because an investor putting money in a haven keeps it in cash.
What actually happens is that money is put into investment baskets which goes to buying debt in enterprise. That enterprise probably employs you.
Or that enterprise buys capital or employs some workers in a third world country. What we have is a tragedy of the commons. Corporations, in order to maximize profits, are outsourcing and cutting wages. To an individual corporation, this makes sense; however, when many corporations do it, they destroy the consumer base that create and buy their products. If every corporation slashed salaries of all their employees, their short term profits might rise, but in the long term who has the money to buy their products. Henry Ford had the right idea, but I doubt a publicly traded company could pull that off.
What you say does not contradict that Microsoft wants more H1Bs to reduce their labor costs. It's simple supply and demand. By adding people to the job market, H1B visa workers will depress wages. While Microsoft is willing to pay more than market average, they will still benefit from a lower market average.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.