Messages

I want sense organs that can process and transmit in radio frequencies. Also a dedicated brain region for doing proper math, like we have for graphics/language/projectile throwing.

You'd need a huge receiver. I don't know if the transmitter is possible.

But it wasn't really the point.  The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable.  Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.

The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up.  If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.

And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them.  In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.

Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.

Indeed, the subject isn't testable, the subject isn't even defined enough to be a subject. Ask anyone what the subject is, and they will all tell you something different. We can't even talk about it, because there's no confined thing to talk about. The correct statement isn't "God is dead", "god doesn't exist" or "god is meaningless". The correct statement is 'god' is useless.

Yes.  That is precisely what I have been trying to say, when you look at it from a rationalist point of view.  It's like comparing Wagner to a black velvet Elvis.  They are two entirely separate art forms, and have no common points of reference.

However, if they start making testable definitions, i.e. "The world was created in 6 days", "The Earth is 6,000 years old", etc, and use them as the basis for their supernaturalism, it updates my probability towards the supernaturalism being not. Which is pretty much the history of science in a nutshell.

But it wasn't really the point.  The point is, you can't really make a factual statement about the subject, because the subject isn't testable.  Yes, I know I just made not one but two factual statements, but I'm a venerable Holy Man™, so shut up.

The point I'm trying to make is shut up, by which I mean, if someone's belief, or disbelief as the case may be, does not interfere with your life in a direct fashion, then shut up.  If everyone followed this advice, the world would be what it is supposed to be.

And if they CAN'T follow this advice and insist on insisting, then you have the moral authority - no, the moral obligation - to use the 3 field rotation system, the vassal/liege system, and the manorial accounting method on them.  In short, thou shalt get all medieval upon their posteriors.

Thus sayeth the Dark God of the Desert.

Indeed, the subject isn't testable, the subject isn't even defined enough to be a subject. Ask anyone what the subject is, and they will all tell you something different. We can't even talk about it, because there's no confined thing to talk about. The correct statement isn't "God is dead", "god doesn't exist" or "god is meaningless". The correct statement is 'god' is useless.

I agree, emotional abuse or threats can be just as ineffective or damaging,  Parenting is a marathon, not a sprint. Actually, it's more like marathons, one after another into infinity.  Consistency and persistence are the keys.

Thank you Dr. Spock.  I noticed you haven't left yet. Please do so.

cf. your statement on evidence and absence, a Yudkowsky article. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/

One could use that reasoning to prove that people didn't fence left handed until the modern era.

Proof is for mathematicians. Bayesians update probabilities.

How about something that will help us survive in an increasingly toxic environment?

Pollution filters for the lungs, tougher skin to protect against UV rays, increased resistance to tainted water/food, etc.

Or maybe we could just get bigger forebrains so we would have the foresight to stop poisoning our own environment.

Humans and foresight are incompatible. I've read a study.

Marginally relevant to the OP: A literary critique of DSM-5 by American Psychiatric Association. http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/book-of-lamentations/

cf. your statement on evidence and absence, a Yudkowsky article. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/

On April 26, 1937, the future of the world was told in a little town by the name of Guernica.  Everything you needed to know...WWII, the holocaust, the cold war, and all the other party treats that went with it were announced, loudly and publicly, in that doomed village.

The Spanish Civil War was essentially target practice for the Germans, and a good place to slug ideologies out for all the "volunteers", both fascist and socialist.  Neither side thought to ask the opinions of the Spanish, who got their arses kicked up between their shoulder blades.

Picasso's painting of the event is the sole redeeming virtue of "modern art", at least in my opinion.  It captures the chaos of war in a way that I've never seen done in any other medium.  Or in this case, a one-sided slaughter of civilians, done to research modern bombing techniques.

Which makes me ask myself uncomfortable questions about drones in Pakistan.  But anyway.

The point is, "prophecy" is an awesome thing, because you can never benefit from it, because anyone close enough to see it is too close to the situation, and won't make heads or tails of it until it's far, far too late...Much like the Oracles of Delphi.  Huff some ethylene, babble a bit, and the rubes will make it all fit after the fact.  Remember Phyros?  Neither do I.

But I keep thinking about Guernica, and about drones.

Or Kill Me.

I'm reminded of Aeschylus's Agamemnon. Cassandra knows what awaits her in the house, she has a vision of her death, but she goes in anyway. It made no difference.

How about something that will help us survive in an increasingly toxic environment?

Pollution filters for the lungs, tougher skin to protect against UV rays, increased resistance to tainted water/food, etc.


Also,

You dream small. I dream of insects the size of a mobile home.

Kai is sounding more like a mad scientist each day.  This pleases me.

Hey, it would be dinosaurs, except the Jurassic Park dreams of my childhood didn't pay out. Turns out that DNA doesn't survive 65 million years of sedimentary processes. Even collagen is usually contaminated. Jack Horner is working on giving chickens teeth, fingers, and tails, but it just isn't the same.

There are some major challenges ahead, namely, making chitin stronger and lighter, and the insect equivalent of lungs. Once we've passed the physical constraints, getting them bigger is a simple act of feeding and breeding. I think of it as a moral imperative.

One of my friends once sat down and tried to speculate about what would happen if you were to modify the appendix, since we don't know much about what it does other than if helps to propagate certain bacteria. This of course ended in theorizing how to make women lactate beer, because of course it did.

Weak. The appendix is a microbiome storage system. If your gut fauna gets wiped out by disease or antibacterials, your appendix is the center of recolonization.

Also, beer lactation? Weak. How about appendage asymmetry? How about armoring the brain and putting it in the center of the body? How about fiddling around with the gonosomes so that people can change sex like clown fish? You dream small. I dream of insects the size of a mobile home.

Why would you dream that? Locusts the size of steam engines sounds terrible. Instead, Polar Bears the size of dogs. Ooh, i would also like to reclaim some of my monkey parts and parkour  across town.

I dream big.

Not going to happen.

I wasn't asking.

"Net-Stomping". 



Do you hold little army guys and make "pew pew" sounds when you are "net-stomping" ?

No, I just do what I've done in this thread. With the ultimate goal for you to leave.

And therein lies the problem.  Blind allegiance.

Whatever happened to Think For Yourself, Schmuck?

A man who I still argue with, who called me nearly every week for /years/, who has forgiven me plenty of bullshit. That's called friendship, but what would you know of it?

Plenty, with people who observe the whole "treat how you want to be treated" idea.  If someone wants to treat me like an enemy because of my viewpoints, then that is what they'll get from me.

Especially people who make shit up and perpetuate it without anyone questioning.

You're a douchebag. Thus your treatment.

Maybe someone should "net-stomp" me, teach me a lesson.

It's a waste of her time to even talk to you, much less call you out.

I got a "net-sassin" once, and barely survived it, I suppose a "net-stomping" might be a little more serious.

You were an asshole who got personal, and received personal in return.

Prove it. 

No. I don't negotiate with trolls, especially random stranger trolls.