Jump to content

LimpyLoo

Members
  • Posts

    10,484
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by LimpyLoo

  1. San Bernardino suspect syed farook's father said he was 'very religious' Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  2. https://www.instagram.com/p/-z3eBvPopx/ Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (Graphic-ish) Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  3. And SFPD just fucking executed a...(you guessed it)...unarmed black dude There's video, and yes it was a fucking execution Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  4. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-up-to-20-shot-in-san-bernardino-active-shooter-sought-20151202-story.html?6 Ignore the story in my previous post (mods delete?) Apparently the dude was at the party...then left, and came back with two accomplices (But reports this soon tend to be hella shoddy, so we'll see) Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  5. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/02/police-id-suspect-in-san-bernardino-massacre-as-syed-farook.html Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (Two shooters dead, a third person in custody) Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  6. "With that line of logic, you won't be able to prove much of anything. I'd rather skip some of the basic philosophical elements here since most of us are older than 15." You make fun of my philosophical rants, but then you demonstrate that you are oblivious to the state of the debate within philosophy and neuroscience since you seemed to have solved the 'p-zombie' problem (as well as a few other persistent problems that have plagued the philosophy of mind for centuries) you should publish and collect your Nobel prize "You can observe and identify whether something has a consciousness by noting when they do things that aren't essential." You can't, though Did you know slime molds can reliably solve rat mazes? does that mean they're conscious? Also, you are (unfoundedly) assuming that intelligence and consciousness go hand in hand If you want to demonstrate this, you have to use more than simply your gut feeling on the matter As I said before: as a probabilistic matter, of course all the people around me are conscious, as well as some large portion of animals But this is 'synthetic' knowledge, not 'empirical' knowledge...you will never directly be able to prove that I'm conscious Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  7. There's no way to directly prove that other beings are conscious How do you know that I'm conscious? You can infer it, but you'll never ever know for certain Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  8. What I take out of that is that the investigation into the coverup was initiated by police officers. Good news! Of course it's probably just a power play, as it was initiated by long term officers. oh that part is good news the horror is that this can go on for 15-20 years
  9. and another: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/reagan-administration-response-to-aids-crisis
  10. another horrifying item for the day: http://henrycountyreport.com/blog/2015/12/01/leaked-documents-reveal-dothan-police-department-planted-drugs-on-young-black-men-for-years-district-attorney-doug-valeska-complicit/
  11. Thing is, that actually happened... =/ Almost more sad than it is funny. hey, check your bigotry all beliefs about reality are equally valid please, respect their faith geez, why do you guys hate Africans? (it must be their skin color)
  12. This states the case better than I possibly could: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
  13. So what's your objection? That I'm overanalyzing things and that really it's all as simple as it appears?
  14. 1) The idea isn't that death is irrelevant, the idea is that we are the ship of theseus 2) the original question is 'if you step into a teleporter here on earth that destroys you and assembles atoms into an identical copy of you on the moon: is that you traveling to the moon? or are you simply being killed and copied?' The problem is that there is no definition of personal identity that stands up to scrutiny Memory? You'd be the same person wven if you got amnesia (wouldn't you?) Identical assembly of atoms? A copy won't be you, at least not phenomenologically (see above where 'original' gets fatally injured and is not comforted by thought that his noon copy will survive)
  15. If your only objection is that one is more extreme than the other, then that's not really an objection
  16. 1) the "drowning child" argument wasn't Parfit...you must've been watching Steven Pinker 2) Parfit's point about teleportation is actually really subtle and (I think) pretty novel: At first it appears that his point is rather mundane: that the person that steps into the teleporter is not the same person that steps out the other side (and that, if the teleporter malfunctioned and left the 'original' intact and fatally wounded, the 'original' would take no comfort in the thought that the 'new' him will survive) That's old, 'ship of theseus' stuff Rather, what he says is that (essentially) the difference between you today and you yesterday is the same difference between the 'original' and the person that steps out the other side The simple fact that you could (conceivably) travel back in time to yesterday and argue over whether 'yesterday you' should take out the trash now or put it off until tomorrow (thus burdening the 'today you')...shows the idea of a unified-identity-across-time as problematic...
  17. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Parfit's_hitchhiker
  18. 1) Not every slope is slippery 2) Derek Parfit is a genius of the highest order...his thought experiment "Parfit's Hitchhiker" is often used to test decision theories in game theory (spoiler: they all fail, save for one) Also, he talks alot about identity (check out his thoughts on teleporters for some mind-bending stuff), our moral obligations to future (as-yet-unborn) people, the paradoxical math of population ethics, etc
  19. Dolphins are amazing...too bad they're fucked (thanks to greed and corruption, as usual): https://shadowproof.com/2015/11/28/ban-on-tuna-labeled-dolphin-safe-shows-how-tpp-will-crush-consumer-rights/
  20. 50 Cent should be rotting in jail for murder, conspiracy to commit murder, public endangerment, arms trafficking, and a host of other gang-related activity Hopefully he gets thrown in jail for all this goofy bankruptcy shit
  21. What sort of radical views do you hold? Who / what are you watching? Well, what I want to see in this world is everyone living as safely, freely, comfortably, and for as long as possible (and as long as you don't harm the people around you, you have the right to do whatever the fuck you please) This, i think, is the most important principle regarding society The hard part, of course, is figuring out how to deal with people who aren't on board with such a principle This is something I think about semi-obsessively, every day, everytime I read the news: for instance, a couple days ago there was a guy in Detroit or Chicago (I forget which) who robbed an 80yo man, and then doused him in gasoline and set him on fire to cover his tracks...and then the BLM shooting and the Planned Parenthood shooting... So recently I've come to the opinion that murderers (and rapists, and other such monsters) shouldn't be allowed to procreate, as I feel that civilization has a right to defend itself against being poisoned by their shitty, destructive, anti-social genes Parenting is another thing I've been thinking about lately...there was recently a gang dispute (again, I think in Chicago) where a 9yo boy was (purposely) killed in retaliation Whatever it is that creates such fucking monsters--e.g. genes, parenting, poverty (although clearly povery alone doesn't create monsters)--needs to be addressed in an extreme way if we ever hope to make this world a truly decent place I know alot of shitty parents, and not suprisingly they raise shitty kids, and these shitty kids seem to be the ones executing 9yo's and trying to rape/murder my girlfriend and shooting up health clinics and immolating elderly people for a few bucks I don't know what the specific solution to shitty parenting is, but due to the immense harm it does to society, I don't think people have the *right* to be shitty parents (in economics, this would be called an 'externality,' a harm created by bad parents and inflicted upon society; thus society has a right to 'offset' such externalities, however that might be done) The earth is a shared space (for better or worse) and that being the case, I think civilization has a right to defend itself against shitty people, beyond what it currently does --- As far as who/what has influenced my recent 'radicalization'...mostly just reading moral philosophy, psychology, econonics, population ethics, metaethics, game theory, AI research...these fields are fertile ground for new ideas, as discussion tends not to be impeded by taboo or political considerations... Philosophers especially generate novel ideas...i'm a huge fan of Derek Parfit, Nick Bostrom, David Chalmers, Peter Singer So anyway...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.