Disqus - Friends of danielrm26

Re: Vitamins

cooperati — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:32:20 -0000

"At my house, we have assorted nuts and dried fruits out on the counter at all times, which we regularly snack on throughout the day."

What, like deep fried and dipped in chocolate, right? Come one, man, where's the nutrition without the empty calories and indigestible cholesterol?

-=T=-

Re: Google Maps Navigation

CarlM — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:41:25 -0000

Three things ...

(3) Allow multitasking. I mean, come on .. they've got Expose and Spaces on their full-sized systems .. surely some variation of these would make for a nice way to run multiple programs on the iPhone.

...

Re: Harry Potter and the Extension of Reality

CarlM — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:49:37 -0000

... on the topic of great books (and series) I have read ...

I think that the ideas of "primacy effect" and "recency effect" have to do with which are my favorites. A recently read book may be near the top of my list of favorites simply because (as you pointed out in your post) the characters and experiences seem more real than those from the distant past. (This is just the recency effect in action.) But, this post got me to thinking about my own favorite books (The Foundation Series, The Ender Series, ...) and I realized that two books that will probably always be high in my list of favorites are the first two books that got me excited about science fiction. I read them in Junior High School: Operation Time Search and The Universe Between. I have copies of both books that I bought at used bookstores as an adult .. and I was pleased to discover that the reviews of these books at Amazon are positive (I wasn't sure if they held a special place in my own memory because they got me excited about science fiction .. I suspect that this [the primacy effect] is a part of it).

Re: Harry Potter and the Extension of Reality

CarlM — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:43:08 -0000

"I agree that you're puzzled."

:-D Great answer.

I know that the idea that reading extends experiences isn't new to you. My comment was that this is how the post reads.

I would suggest that reading a book about a baseball game is analagous to listening to a radio broadcast of a baseball game. If the book is well written, and if the broadcasters are good at their jobs, you can become so immersed in the experience that it is like being at the game .. it can be even BETTER (in some ways) than being at the game because if you lack expertise and are at the game you might not know where to look and what to look for .. you might not appreciate the light breeze off the lake and the smell of spring in the air .. you might not see the pitcher get up in the bullpen (a signal that the current pitcher might be starting to tire). If you watch on TV a well made movie about a baseball game, there can be little difference between seeing an inning play out in the movie and seeing an inning play out in an actual live baseball game on that same TV. So, in this sense, the experience of fiction and the experience of reality are nearly indistinguishable (as you seem to be suggesting). I would suggest that YOU think that it matters whether or not the person experiencing these things knows whether the experiences are of real or fictional events. (Perhaps I'm wrong .. in which case, you need to rethink your criticisms of biblical literalists.)

Anyway, I stand by my assertion that it is wrong to assert that "you can look back upon the things you’ve experienced while reading as things you’ve done." But I think that we may be interpreting that statement in different ways. If your assertion is that reading about a baseball game is essentially equivalent to hearing a good broadcast of a baseball game, then I'd not disagree. If your assertion is that reading about a baseball game is essentially equivalent to being at a baseball game, I'd disagree. The reading might convey all of the key points of being at a game, but BEING at a baseball game is fundamentally different .. there are so many parts of that experience that it is impossible for even the most talented author to capture them all. It might feel like you are there, but when you are ACTUALLY there you will notice the difference. Still .. the experience of reading about a baseball game CAN be sufficiently sufficiently similar to being there that I'll not argue strenuously about this. HOWEVER, if your assertion is that reading about rock climbing (regardless of how well written) is in any way equivalent to rock climbing, then I'd disagree strenuously.

So, if you feel like you know the characters in the HP series .. great .. I know the feeling from books and series of books that I have read and enjoyed. If you feel like you know what it is to be in the stands of a Quiddich game .. fair enough .. you've experienced it to the same extent that anyone else has. Enjoy books ... enjoy the virtual experiences contained within them. But, recognize the differences between real and virtual life (a line which will likely become much more blurred within our lifetimes).

Re: A Java Professor’s Website

CarlM — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:12:30 -0000

I do like the design. It's different. Different can be GOOD (not that it's always good). In this case .. the professor wants to capture the imagination of his students .. to encourage them to think outside the box. I think that the design of his site does that quite well.

If every website I came across had that sort of over-the-top overdesign, I'd go crazy, but no, I wasn't being sarcastic .. for it's purpose, it's a nicely designed website.

I'm not sure whether to blame HIM or Apple for the fact that it doesn't load on an iPhone. (Apple, Flash may not be part of the HTML standard, but come on .. let's get it on the iPhone .. or let's get developers and browsers to all use SVG.)

Re: Harry Potter and the Extension of Reality

cooperati — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:18:39 -0000

This is so good. It's an awesome step in a great direction. I can't say right or correct, because it's really just an option to perceive the world in terms relating to unreal experiences. It's just as equally valid to ignore them.

As far as religion, this exposes one severe problem you admittedly have with the people who follow the church, and take those stories as literal fact. So, it's this result that you oppose, which you take as the primary effect of the existence of the church, and possibly their self-fulfilling purpose.

**However, in either case, the supposition is that both real and unreal experiences are applicable to reality. So, it's irrelevant whether or not the person accepts a false experience as real.**

Lastly, the problem of fanaticism exists in both real and unreal things. For example, all the energy and enthusiasm surrounding sports, or rock bands, diversions from constructive purposes, but self-fulfilling in and by themselves. People will kill or impose their views on any subject, and can cause a criminal cult in every aspect of humanity.

Food for thought. Peace, bro.

-=T=-

Re: Group of Rich Germans Demand That Rich Pay Higher Taxes

CarlM — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:18:42 -0000

Daniel, your post implies that attitudes on this topic are different in the two countries (Germany and the US). You didn't merely point out that there was a group of wealthy Germans who were in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy. You went on to imply that there were no such people here in the US. This is factually incorrect. It MAY also be the case that most wealthy Germans are screaming “Mine, mine, mine!”. The data certainly doesn't suggest otherwise, but you have jumped to the conclusion that these 44 petition signers are representative of wealthy Germans and that those in the US screaming “Mine, mine, mine!” are representative of wealthy Americans.

During the presidential campaign last year there were MANY such comments from wealthy Americans. The one who pushed the issue the hardest was Warren Buffett, but he was far from alone. For a recent example of Buffett's push for political action on this, follow this link: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffet...

Too often, Daniel, you let your position on an issue color how you view evidence. I'm sure that we're all guilty of this to some extent, but I'll still call you on it when I see you doing it.

Re: Absolute vs. Practical Free Will

CarlM — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:02:20 -0000

Yeah, I know ... it's pretty good proof. lol

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

cooperati — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:31:45 -0000

It's actually an addicting point of view. I once wrote a 32 page essay on determinism in high school. (I got an A on it.)

I don't know if Daniel had Mr. Halford in Senior year.

-=T=-

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:21:44 -0000

I know that I should give you a chance to respond before I elaborate, but I just found this quote in an article linked to on your blog:

"Every system has two sets of rules: The rules as they are intended or commonly perceived, and the actual rules ("reality"). In most complex systems, the gap between these two sets of rules is huge.

Sometimes we catch a glimpse of the truth, and discover the actual rules of a system. Once the actual rules are known, it may be possible to perform "miracles" -- things which violate the perceived rules."

The original is here: http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2009/10/applie...

----

The point is that it is difficult to know which "miracles" are allowed by a sufficiently complex set of laws. This is a more elegant way of making the point I made about your being too quick to dismiss things as impossible.

Carl

PS There was a British writer who said something similar. I'll paraphrase: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Daniel, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:14 -0000

He does it because he must. :-)

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:19:17 -0000

I realized that the following sentence might be misinterpreted: "If there is no way to distinguish between them, I believe they are equally real." Note that I'm not claiming that they are real. I'm claiming that it only makes sense (from my philosophical perspective) for either BOTH to be real or BOTH to be false (as long as they are indistinguishable from one another). Asserting that one is real while the other isn't makes no (philosophical) sense to me.

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:09:43 -0000

I think I understand what you're saying, but unless there is a way that "absolute" and "practical" free will can be distinguished from one another by observation (including whatever scientific experiments might be dreamt of by those with greater imaginations than mine) I don't see how we can talk about one being "real" and the other one not.

PS I think that a philosophical discussion on the topic of "what is real and why does it matter" would be quite interesting.

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

cooperati — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:10:28 -0000

"but you've ALSO talked about "practical free will" as existing, but being "only" what we perceive (as opposed to being "real")."

What I would like to say about this, perhaps expanding in a specific way, is that anything not within the realm of the physical universe, doesn't exist, and isn't real.

So, using "real" to relate to something meta-physical, whether it be on a higher order of conceptual magnitude (or lower), just doesn't seem right, and probably against the purpose of what is real.

In addition, this probably improper usage of "real" might better relate, include, imply, or replace "supernatural" as well as meta-physical.

Just an observation about what is "real" vs. what is real, from this conversation. Maybe this might need a more in depth definition, too, or refinement to mutually accepted terms. The impact on "practical" compared to "absolute" could, and likely should, be pivotal.

-=T=-

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:52:32 -0000

Daniel, let me borrow a few of Kyle's words that clearly and calmly capture my position on the science of free will (whatever that is). (I've edited this slightly.)

"... I'm happy to leave it as unknown pending further advances. I suspect that, should we ever figure it out, it [may] turn out to be possible within the laws of the universe for consciousness to be first cause, though I honestly can't see how at this point ..."

Daniel, I think that once you've cleaned up your circluar arguments, what remains will boil down to something like this: "Since nobody seems able to explain HOW current physical law would allow consciousness to inject freely-chosen willful action into the universe, it must be impossible." This seems to be the core of your argument (you keep asking HOW free choice is possible given our understanding of physics). My position is that you are far too quick to dismiss things as impossible. You told cooperati to go do some reading before taking part in the conversation. I might tell you to do the same (though I don't have a specific set of readings to suggest). The history of science (and of the world) is full of those who claimed that particular things could have no natural explanation (thus concluding that they were either supernatural or illusion) ... only to be proven wrong. Sometimes what proved them wrong was the development of new physical theories, but other times it took only a more imaginative application of existing theory. New consequences of existing physical theory are still coming out of the minds of physicists (and chemists and biologists and ...). The point is that unless physical theory EXCLUDES the possibility of free will (and except in the case of a purely deterministic world, free will has not been shown to be excluded from the theory), it is inappropriate to assert that it is scientifically impossible. You are (of course) free to take a philosophical stand on the issue, but you are confusing this philosophical stand with a scientific stand.

That's all separate from my other point. You've talked about "absolute free will" (which you define as being incompatible with physical theory) being incompatible with physical theory, but you've ALSO talked about "practical free will" as existing, but being "only" what we perceive (as opposed to being "real"). My position on this is that if you can't tell them apart through observation, then there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two (this is a philosophical position). If there is no way to distinguish between them, I believe they are equally real. Any difference you perceive is a philosophical one (and you're welcome to any philosophical position you choose).

Re: Absolute vs. Practical Free Will

cooperati — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:26:56 -0000

"BTW. It's clear to me you are using the free will problem to lay the foundations of a basically progressive political philosophy."

On the nose!

-=T=-

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:50:13 -0000

Kyle, though Daniel is a tad stubborn at times (a quality that I share and consider a good one), he is pretty good at admitting when he realizes that his arguments are flawed. I too respect this in him.

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:14:02 -0000

Apparently I no longer need to write the post I was getting ready to write. :-)

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

cooperati — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:00:13 -0000

sorry 'bout that! ;)

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:49:11 -0000

I know, but it just seemed so out of character. (Trust me I know how you feel. I've got students who come with questions about Chapter 8 when I can see that they don't yet understand Chapter 4.)

Then too, I think that the fact that a fourth grader can make an argument in favor of free will does not mean that it isn't a good argument.

I'd like to quote a friend of mine. He dabbles a bit in philosophy and recently wrote: "If it were as easy as you just tried to make it the topic wouldn't have been a debate for the last couple thousand years." You might take this to heart, Daniel.

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:43:44 -0000

@Kyle: Yes, he assumes the conclusion.

@Daniel: Kyle's making a good point here .. don't brush it away as quickly as you are tempted to do.

You assert that the PREVIOUS state of the universe must be changed. That's a rather odd assertion. It seems CLEAR that to change the previous state of the universe, you'd have to change an even earlier state, etc. Of course nobody will follow this line of infinite regress. (In any case, I don't think many people are arguing that to make a choice they must change a PAST state of the universe.)

Your alternative is that the laws that govern the universe must be changed. WOW. That's a lot to ask of someone who is just trying to make an arbitrary (but free) decision. I can't imagine that anyone will argue that they change the laws of the universe every time that they decide what to get on their pizza.

Perhaps your assertion that these are the only two possibilities is faulty.

PS I agree with stringerbell's reaction from Reddit.

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:06:57 -0000

"... however our choice is 100% guided by preexisting factors over which we have no control." Well, I will say this for that argument. It's very Daniel-like. It assumes the conclusion quite nicely.

Re: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

CarlM — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:04:35 -0000

"you have much reading to do before you can participate in this conversation" ... and he didn't pay the participation entrance fee either. :)

Re: Absolute vs. Practical Free Will

CarlM — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:03:31 -0000

I disagree. Indeed, I would argue that "real" does NOT matter if multiple possibilities of what is "real"are not distinguishable by any observation we can possibly make.

I thought you'd understand why I put "real" in quotes.

Re: Absolute vs. Practical Free Will

CarlM — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:48:36 -0000

"If it were as easy as you just tried to make it the topic wouldn't have been a debate for the last couple thousand years."

lol ... right back at ya!