But did he predict the Seahawks winning the Superbowl by 35 pts and did he make any money off of it?
Yes, he did.But did he predict the Seahawks winning the Superbowl by 35 pts and did he make any money off of it?
Just got dumped, only thing I can think about is how much gas I am going to save and how much money I am going to save.
Just got dumped, only thing I can think about is how much gas I am going to save and how much money I am going to save.
That's awesome. You're attitude, I mean. Not the getting dumped part.
Sounds like she was very high matienence.
I always think of it as their loss. I spent my hard earned money on them, but no more! I'm just pissed I had an idea about it, and I still paid for dinner.
I don't think so, I'm just an old fashioned guy. I always try to pay for things. But pretty pissed off she was going to dump me and didn't offer to pay. That's just ****ed up. This just frees me up for Sarah.
Just got dumped, only thing I can think about is how much gas I am going to save and how much money I am going to save.
From my last post...see 2You're sidestepping the issue. There's nothing wrong with accepting the notion that life, even for people like you and I, who acknowledge the value of the scientific method, is often an exercise in faith. We would not be able to function otherwise. I believe the airplane will not spontaneously fall apart mid-flight, and yet if you ask me why, my answer will be so vague as to be functionally meaningless. I may understand terms like "internal combustion" and "laminar flow," but that understanding is not even remotely based on my personally verifying the underlying principles of chemistry and aerodynamics. My belief stems from a certain perspective, a specific mental system by which I make sense of the world. And it works for me, as it does for you.
What I'm saying is that your alchemists and prophets behaved in much the same way. We call them primitive, but what they were doing was in fact quite similar in the sense that they used a combination of prior experience and received knowledge to explain the world, and to make predictions about what was to come. They were wrong, but all they had to go on was the paradigm they inherited from previous generations. We are in the same position.
That is the basic point I'm trying to make: we are all products of a particular time and place; Kurzweil, while clearly brilliant in his own right, has had the benefit of centuries' worth of Joachims, Aquinases, Avicennas, Averroeseses, on down to Newton and Maxwell and you get the idea.
I maintain that the difference lies not in the asperation. I think Joachim, at least as much as Kurzweil, wanted to find out what would become of us. It's a very human desire and I sympathize with each. And that is where I see the parallel: not in terms of the technical nitty-gritty of a given claim, but in terms of insight into the human condition.
You're focusing on the body too much, the real change is augmenting the mind. If you think people will not want to do that, I think you're greatly underestimating the human desire for a competitive advantage. Sure people would be worried at first for safety reasons but just like lasek, once augmentation of the mind was considered safe and proven, most who can afford it will do it. Sure the luddites of the world won't but those people always get left behind in every generation, this is nothing new. While those types do momentarily disrupt the present, luckily they do not dictate our future otherwise we'd still be huddled up in caves refusing to use fire because it's the devil's tool. lolI think you should try imagining harder. As humans, we identify with our bodies. I can't prove it, but I suspect you'd find there are psychological limits to how extensively people are willing to modify themselves.
Oh geez, I was just trying to actually agree with one of your points.You're worrying too much about categories.
Well in this instance when I connect the dots, it will absolutely suck for you. Again like I alluded to before, I'm not necessarily envisioning some sort of utopia here. I'm merely discussing things I think have a high probability of happening, not whether or not they are better or worse for us as a society.That is a very big problem. Suppose I choose not to undergo bodily modification, or, much more likely, suppose I simply can't afford it. As a cybernetic ubermensch, you might decide that you know what's best for me. At the very least, you'll believe that you are my superior, because according to nearly every quantitative metric, you are. On the other hand, you are still human, subject to human prejudice and human ignorance. Connect the dots.
You keep assuming we're talking about the body in this discussion, in my last reply I said...My issue is this: What if you're looking at your clone--not just in terms of anatomy, but in terms of memory, personal likes and dislikes, favorite food, favorite color--and you know that you're still you, and your clone is... not-you. If you died, it would make no real difference to the clone. If the clone dies, it makes no real difference to you. You go on. Or... not. Again, I can't prove it, but my hunch is that this is what we're dealing with.
I'm not just talking physically....I mean could they be distinguished from the original in any way. The way they talk, laugh, feel, their "moxy", etc. Could someone who knows the subject intimately talk to the clone and know for sure they're talking to a clone? Would the clone itself know anything is different? It's an interesting debate because if that can occur, it lends heavily to the idea that we are purely biological entities and have...wait for it...no soul.if I had the technology to literally copy every single biological component of your body and assemble it literally exactly as you are assembled, would I end up with a being that could not be distinguished from the original by an outside or by themselves? Personally, I think the answer is yes
Sounds like she was very high matienence.
With high maintenance, you get to go under the hood and change the fluids quite often.
I have been looking at pictures of Sochi from reporters there. Wow...umm WtF . I am baffled at the lack of quality in almost everything. I am going to watch the opening ceremony for sure because there is a chance that Russia might embarrass themselves even more.
Interested to see it tonight when they broadcast it on NBC, but something tells me they won't be showing much of the city?
Then, to be honest, you're leaving out a huge, huuuuge part of the discussion. The most interesting side of it, in my opinion. Without exploring it, talking about a 30-second mile or a quadruple-digit IQ is just daydreaming. I mean, we're certainly not going to engineer those kinds of breakthroughs. We might as well talk about mining dilithium crystals on Pluto. But we're more than qualified to ask whether any of the things you mention would be entirely good for us.I'm merely discussing things I think have a high probability of happening, not whether or not they are better or worse for us as a society.
I'm not leaving it out, you were asserting that I was indeed assuming all of this change would be good for society but that's not the case at all. Aarrggh you are very frustrating because you make so many assumptions. Generally speaking I have actually been responding to the words you write (ironically, not much this time around), you're the one who talks around me. I think maybe you do that because you respond to what you feel I'm writing instead of what I'm actually writing. It's my only explanation for why your replies rarely seem to have anything to do with what I actually wrote.Then, to be honest, you're leaving out a huge, huuuuge part of the discussion. The most interesting side of it, in my opinion. Without exploring it, talking about a 30-second mile or a quadruple-digit IQ is just daydreaming. I mean, we're certainly not going to engineer those kinds of breakthroughs. We might as well talk about mining dilithium crystals on Pluto. But we're more than qualified to ask whether any of the things you mention would be entirely good for us.
And as a skeptic, I do find it useful to put claims into their various historical and cultural contexts, not because I want to libel the claimant, but because context can be an important part of understanding. If that's not your bag, no biggie, but I do think you're missing out. For example, you seem to admire Kurzweil; I bet you'd find him all the more remarkable if you understood where he came from, in a long-term, historical sense.
But all this explains why we seem to be talking around each other lo these many pages, and I hope I haven't annoyed you overmuch in the process. (I do not know which emoticon is now meant to stand for earnest, benevolent, open-handed amusement, but whatever it may be, I plant it here. From one Coyote fan to another.)
I'd be all over it if I didn't already have a season ticket ... another giveaway we miss out on. I'd like to just buy one.The signed Olympic poster sure would be great to have!