droolmaster0

You mean his Politics? Heigegger, later on, was a very different man..which is probably why Being and Time was abandoned. I might not have the quote exactly, but he refers to "the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism" in one of his works, and left that passage in even in a later edition, which came out after the war. I think that his philosophy and politics were intertwined, and I personally think that someone who has such an 'essential' philosophy of being would try to apply this to the nature of people and nations. I believe that he was attracted to Nazism because he thought that it enacted some of his basic principles. I confess that I found Heidegger a bore, and never read much, especially when I found out that he was a Nazi. Wittgenstein was more my style.

Unfortunately so were a lot of German philosophers of the time. Some bits about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Heidegger_and_Nazism http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/heidegge.htm I still agree with his ontology as laid out in Being and Time written when he was still relatively young before "the turn" and think it has absolutely nothing to do with his politics...or his notorious drinking habits. How can a man's philosophy, ultimately, have nothing to do with his philosophy?

I have written more essays on the Epistles than you have had hot dinners- let alone READ them- I actually have a BA in comparative religion among others- you barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to paint me as misrepresenting or misunderstanding the Bible You never sent that cab over.

Time for a good VCO vs. DCO debate. :poke: I voted for vco.

I knew we could get this into non-sequitur territory. But he WAS, historically, a Nazi.

What about Heidegger? "Being and Time" is one of my favorite books of all time. :love: ...shame he never properly finished it. Heidegger was a Nazi. (not metaphorically)

just saying that I am not alone-that is all- Bostrom's work is well regarded by other philosophers- the Simulation Hypothesis is not considered incoherent- it's biggest critics usually jsut assert that the first position is correct: "(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a

not without Spinoza through the lens of Hegel We need the special glasses?

ok: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904050 and also http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html I don't think many of you realize that these ideas are coming from a large group of scientists- not just one pot-head posting on KSS I don't think that you realize that it isn't enough to simply declare that there is a 'large group' (which I'd doubt) of scientists who believe that you can prove God's existence on a blackboard. Certainly the majority of scientists don't believe this, and I'd wager that the vast majority of philosophers would maintain that the notion is philosophically incoherent.

- we can even CALCULATE the statistical distribution of Gods per/galaxy by simply adding one more term to the Drake Equation: we take then add another variable: f-sub-h which is the fraction of technological civilizations that develop hypercomputers- hypercomputers by their very nature sort/reprogram/access all possible worlds and do the work of God- Well, there is one objective truth arising from all of this - we know with absolute certainty who has the best dope on hc.

Logic is objective and based on universal formal systems and mathematical proofs and not subject to point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic again this is not a debate- this is simply the misuse of terms inappropriately applied to objective concepts ah - you got there first this time.

Hell, man, you ALL scare the living {censored} out of me! Now go vote your conscience and get off my lawn, kthx. So then, why are you here? And keep your damn dog from leaving his turds in my garden. My cat eats them. thanks.

I thought I was being reasonably logical. You seemed to understand me. Perfect example. the fact that I understand your words doesn't mean that your connection between ideas is logical. I give up now. People like you scare the living {censored} out of me.

I get your point, CR. And we know, in our heart of hearts, that we will disagree, FUNDAMENTALLY, on many things. But it's OK. That's what makes America great. We may each take a node of moral superiority for our viewpoints, but at the end of the day I have no more right than you to believe my views should be expressed into laws. Actually, I disagree. The majority should not have the right to suppress minorities, or take away rights. the majority should not have the right to deny people (blacks, christians, muslims, jews, women, gays, etc) rights that they are born with and deserve. Of course, CR has the right to believe anything he wants, but there are fundamental differences between views which respect human rights and those that don't, and those which are based on logic and humanitarian reasoning and tradition, and those that are based on kneejerk readings of the bible.

It's called voting and democracy. I thought that's what voting was for? To make my voice heard? Except what you vote for is to restrict the rights of others, and to make this country a theocracy.

Shame on those who kill human beings that cannot defend themselves. But you refuse even to recognize that MOST people don't believe that human beings exist from conception and that because of this, you can't just take people that you disagree with and incarcerate them for their whole lives. You don't differentiate any kind of motive for something to be murder - if I kill a human being, there is no dispute about it. If a woman has an abortion, there IS a dispute about it, and she isn't (to most people) committing murder. this is why we have tried to establish a separation of church and state in this country, and this is why so many people have no respect for right wing, crackpot, born again, bible thumpin' Christians - you ARE trying to force your beliefs on everyone by making the whole society accept your literal, inflexible, inhumane, so-called Christian beliefs. You deserve everything that you get here and elsewhere, especially since you are so vocal about expressing these views, and because you are so illogical about expressing them.

There's 3 degrees of murder and different penalties are applied depending on the case, on whether there person genuinely shows remorse, etc. I think that it's safe to say that someone who believes that abortion should be legal will not feel remorse. This I'm sure is nothing new to you. Also, there's the fact that currently it is a legal procedure, so you can't really make the thing retroactive if it's dropped. Who is saying anything about making it retroactive? Third, dropping it from the federal level would mean that the states would make the decision on what abortion is and how it should be dealt with. But to answer shortly, if you want my personal opinion which would guide the way I vote, yes if it's murder it has to be dealt with as such. I've said that before. I don't know what part you didn't understand. Once it's illegal and considered a murder, all involved need to prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I've never heard you come right out and say that you think that it should be penalized as murder. That is an extreme, heartless, draconian position - to put people in jail for many years potentially for participating in an abortion. One of the most un-Christian things I've heard anyone say on this forum. A young woman who has been raped does not have murder in her heart when she gets an abortion, and a doctor who helps her does not have murder in his heart, in any meaningful sense. Yet you would destroy their lives and treat them like any common murderer. Shame on you and those like you.

First of all, I've already said it a lot of times, I'm not for the death penalty. Second, yes to me it is murder. A lot of countries know how to deal with it and have specific laws that govern what to do in this case. The US did too, before 1973. Ok - then I want you to think a little harder now, because you're not getting it. If it IS murder, and should be treated as such, then the penalties should be equivalent to those for murder. Yes or no? Answer the question for once. If the penalties should be much lighter than for murder, then you're not treating it like murder (by definition) and so then society is NOT classifying it as murder. IF in this society you want to treat abortion as murder, then the penalties must be the same - either come out and agree with this or not. It's pretty simple. By your words, you would put doctors and mothers in prison for many years, or (despite your protestations, given that it's murder, and the death penalty IS legal) or people would be executed. For this not to be the case, you would have to consider abortion to be something other than murder. Don't mince words and avoid the question - actually answer it.

Gattttdaaammmit, D! Ain't you heard o' that Ron Paul feller? Remeber the "moneybomb"? pretty amazing stuff. Largely igonored.... No surprise there. The GOP submarined his campaign. He was the ONLY one making any damn sense throughout this whole charade. Crackpot who makes sense on some issues (Iraq, for instance) but is dangerously right wing on others. Less beholden to corporate interests, and speaks truth to power more than other democrat/republican candidates, but I could never vote for him.

fact check time for you, brudder Evidence is 2000 election. Look at the amount of votes wasted on Nader Yes, wasted Who squeaked into the WH as a result ? The votes were only wasted from the vantage point of someone who thought that the president should be from the democrats/republicans. If one thought that a third party vote was important as a long range strategy to break out of the corporate democrat/republican one party system, it wasn't wasted. No one really knew how utterly horrible the Bush administration would be. I voted for Nader in 2000, then held my nose and voted for Kerry in 2004. Do I consider my vote "wasted" in 2000? No.

So who are you writing in? You'd think in this day and age of the internet, these third-party candidates

Pretty cocky response. Sounds like you are one who thinks of himself as of such superior intelligence and finds it far below yourself to respond to such rubbish. Or maybe you just don't have anything intelligent to say. Probably the latter. But ultimately it comes down to spending time arguing against the same garbage over and over and over again. But then again, if I'm I don't have anything intelligent to say, you would have stopped reading by now.

yeah- ok- science is part empirical and part theoretical- I did not mean 50/50- I agree with and defer to David Deutsch's view that Quantum Computers are proof of parallel universes within Qunatum Mechanics- and that the Many Worlds Interpretation is the only VALID interpretation of QM-and that a natural example of interfenece between parallel universes is the fuzzines of shadows- for an everyday example The problem here is that to make your point you are citing references that I haven't read...and I doubt that anyone here (other than yourself has read). I'm not very inclined to spend lots of time researching something that to me is not plausible - that you could prove that parallel universes exist. So, you would be in the difficult position of describing the proof succinctly. But I cannot accept that there are parallel universes based on a reference....though again, the notion is extremely attractive in a multiple droolmaster kind of way. read Marvin Minsky: your brain and all of it's rich sensory experiences and qualia are about 400 kludged neural organs running highly redundant glitched binary logic- 10^15 bits/ops is GENEROUS- most of the brain is literally parts kludged in to cancel out other parts that aren't needed anymore or don't work right- But I don't take strong AI seriously at all...you have to realize that what you say, IN ITSELF, is nonsense to practically everyone here. Not that it doesn't hold together in sentences and paragraphs - but it would be like me referring to this and that Wittgensteinian reference, without actually doing the explaining myself. Why should I read this if you don't come part of the way? and read my sig to understand how the duality of conscious experience and abstract information processing are made One I think that the sig is cute, but I don't think that it means much in reality. I think that NEAR optimal compuation is fine and cheap for most things- why spend vastly more for just a little improvement to get that little bit closer to the top? True, but at that point I was just enjoying hearing myself talk. besides I am a big advocate for INFINITE HYPERCOMPUTATION http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+hypercomputation/0/1/0/all/0/1 - using tricks and bootstraping the Multiverse to get to Infinity- thus no limits I think that you should actually make your arguments in simple English - there would be a much greater chance that I (and perhaps others) would then check out the references. You leave too much out of your arguments. it's California purple bud I retract it all. Send some over in a cab. I'll pay.

ah but science is half empirical and have theoretical- ok - how exactly does your quantification of this work? Why not 30/70, or 80/20? Why not partly/partly? If this is an inexact description of the breakdown, then it certainly isn't scientific.... and the best theories we have tell us: 'Best' meaning? the ones that are the most appealing to you? Multiple universes are cool - all infinite copies of me agree with this - but is this something that can actually be tested? -the universe is an infinite multiverse where ALL physically possible states of matter and energy are realized in some region http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131 Note - I didn't read, since your statement of this as fact relegates this to fantasy. But, again - I think it is fantastic that in some universe there exists a Droolmaster with green eyebrows. I must suppress the urge, though, to agree with you outright without further research. In your favor though, is the fact that in some universe, is a droolmaster who agrees with you. - the human brain and it's developed technology at it's current complexity of 10^15 bits/ops http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html is no where near the optimal limit of information processing of 10^51 ops/ 10^31 bits per kg that just our type of 4D spacetime physics supports http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043 How to express this - it IS incoherent, but I think the way to express it is the notion that you are trying to quantify the complexity of the brain. I imagine that this would include (or else it is somewhat meaningless to me) the complexity of subjective experience. But the notion that this can be quantified meaningfully is ridiculous. The process of doing so goes like this - I want to do it, I come up with a method, and I then declare that this quantification includes all possible experience. It's laughable, really. But again, I am humbled by the (infinite number of) droolmasters in other universes who agree with you, and would have me executed as a heretic. therefore whole UNIVERSES of near optimal intelligence necissarily exist in parts of the universe How do they fall short exactly? Aren't their droolmasters up to snuff? - and those parts have the compuational power to fully simulate and manipulate the ENTIRE Cosmos everywhere/everywhen through local manipulations of spacetime which avail them the ability to access non-local regions of the universe: Omnipotence/Omniscience/Omnipresence Look - I am somewhat ambivalent here. On the one hand, I think that what you're saying is absolutely ridiculous, on the other hand I want to suck up to you so that I can get some of the weed you've been smoking. so all of our best theories and Ontological concepts IMPLY infinite godlike intelligence and utility in the Universe with the ability to directly edit the physics algorithms and states of our world like/as a computer simulation as we are beginning to ourselves- theology then- is nothing more than the acknowledgement of the universality of physics and logic and the acceptence that humankind and it's civilization is not the optimal allowed in the entire Cosmos Oh. That's what it is. Damn.

Maybe you're just not happy with your synths ... Do synths have rights?