User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2016-02-02 at 11:29 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first editionIn a 2014 study, 320 children, ages 8–12, in both public and private schools, were given a Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire assessing the correlation between spirituality and happiness. Spirituality – and not religious practices (praying, attending church services) – correlated positively with the child's happiness; the more spiritual the child was, the happier the child was. Spirituality accounted for about 3–26% of the variance in happiness.
-
2016-02-02 at 9:55 PM UTC in So I'm withdrawaling from alcohol like a cystic fibrosis stricken little bitchNo one can hear you whine in space.
-
2016-02-02 at 8:57 PM UTC in Experience MachineThat's one distinction.
Now, which option would you choose?
And, in your opinion, what is the difference between people who would choose artificial reality and people who would choose reality? -
2016-02-02 at 7:31 PM UTC in Experience Machine
The distinction you are trying to make is imaginary.
Then why do people choose one option over the other?
2/3 voters in this poll chose a simulation over reality. 1/3 chose reality. If there is no distinction between reality and simulation, why did these people make the choices they made? -
2016-02-02 at 6:13 PM UTC in The forced collective suicide of European nationsIf I sit to pee one more time I'm gonna be real mad at myself. I thought I needed to do my business but then it turns out all I could do was whizz like a wimp. Now I'm gonna take some good sniffs of dill while my drawers are still down and LOCK UP THE LATRINE for the evening.
-
2016-02-02 at 6:09 PM UTC in Experience MachineWhat's the difference between people who would choose artificial reality and people who would choose reality?
On one hand we have people who would rather live in reality. If asked why they might tell us they want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them. Maybe they want to be a certain sort of person, not some indeterminate blob floating in a hugbox. They might claim that the machine limits us to a man-made reality, it limits us to what we can make, there is no actual contact with any deeper reality.
On the other hand we have people who would rather live in the artificial reality. They might claim that they are incapable of achieving the experiences they want in the real world. They might claim their dreams are beyond their reach in the real world, but in an artificial reality they can become anything they want. They might claim that reality limits their experiences, while an artificial reality increases their potential experiences.
Who is closer to the truth? Which position is better? -
2016-02-02 at 5:52 PM UTC in The forced collective suicide of European nations
Wow, the editing on this is actually really great, the creator could be a great propagandist. Of course this is purposely crafted to be racist, alarmist bullshit but that's part of the fun.
Are you some sort of apologist? Why is the rape of a nation acceptable in your opinion? -
2016-02-02 at 5:29 PM UTC in The forced collective suicide of European nations[h=1][SIZE=16px]Sweden Being Raped To Death By Muslim Migrants[/SIZE][/h]
-
2016-02-02 at 4:48 PM UTC in The forced collective suicide of European nations[h=1][SIZE=16px]What Pisses Me Off About The German Rape Attacks[/SIZE][/h]
-
2016-02-02 at 4:32 PM UTC in The forced collective suicide of European nations
-
2016-02-01 at 11:28 PM UTC in Experience Machine
I feel like this internet thing is an early beta version of the machine you're talking about and I already prefer it over real life.
Not really but when I'm honest it's probably true.
Just wait until this becomes a thing and they use it to build a super intelligent AI. Or maybe it already happened and we are already in it.
-
2016-02-01 at 11 PM UTC in Experience MachineHow do you know you're not already in the machine?
-
2016-02-01 at 10:50 PM UTC in Experience MachineImagine a machine that could give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences we could want. Imagine scientists have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those he would have apart from the machine.
If given the choice, would you prefer the machine to real life?
-
2016-02-01 at 9:02 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?It is common for people to misunderstand colours. Most people believe that a car looks red because it is red. Or that the grass looks green because it is green. As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘coloured’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colours we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive. Many people may commonly believe colour to be something that is objective, but according to the facts they are wrong. Rather the conclusion the facts support, the correct conclusion, is that colour is not objective.
You've stated that you personally define colours as the physical properties of objects which cause the perception of colours. That sounds a lot like circular logic. If colours are the physical properties of things which cause the perception of colours, then why do different people and animals see different colours (or no colours) when they look at the same objects? The answer is that those physical properties are different in important ways from colours they cause us to percieve. The most obvious being that colour is a visual experience, a subjective experience which varies from person to person. When I look at a red wall I see the colour red, a subjective visual experience. I don't see the microscopic physical properties of the surface of the wall causing me to experience red. Someone with a different brain will look at the same wall and see orange. Someone else will look at the same wall and won't be able to see any colour. The objective properties of the wall don't change every time a new person looks at it. Therefore colour is psychological property of our visual experiences, and not a physical property of the objects we are viewing.
In order for your definition to make any sense at all you have to imagine that "colour" and "the perception of colour" are magically different things. But according to the facts they are not magically different things. According to the facts the colours we percieve are based on the physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive. To define colour as the properties of objects which cause colour is like defining the effect as its own cause.
A rainbow is the appearance of a colorful arch (usually in the sky), and yes, it is caused by a very specific set of circumstance. It is caused by those circumstances, it isn't the circumstances themselves. It is the appearance of a colorful arch. If a rainbow were the specific set of circumstances which cause it, the observer of the rainbow would have to be considered part of the rainbow, and that is ridiculous. Rainbows do not have any specific physical location. Usually they appear in the sky, but if you walk towards one it will appear to move farther away. If you call your friend and tell him there is a rainbow over his house, he won't see it over his house when he looks out his window. Rainbows do not have objective properties. The circumstances which cause the rainbow do, but the cause is not the effect.
And no Lanny, I'm actually not wrong. My argument is entirely legitimate, valid, acceptable and correct. I'm not "misusing" any words at all, rather, you are simply refusing to move past the semantics, face the facts about colour and accept the truth about rainbows. -
2016-01-10 at 6:27 PM UTC in quitting weedI recently bought a PAX2:
"More powerful, but remarkably power efficient. A deeper oven allowing a satisfyingly consistent draw. An elegant, ergonomically redesigned mouthpiece that senses the presence of your lips. A more efficient battery, and intelligent heating and cooling systems to optimize usage. An elegant anodized aluminum surface and integrated LED indicator."
So far I'm very satisfied with it. -
2016-01-10 at 6:11 PM UTC in Fuck IndividualismThe realization that concepts like "free will" and "the self" are illusory, and being able to recognize that we really are all part of a greater whole, are some of the first steps away from an egocentric view of life and towards a greater commitment to well being and the improvement of life for all of us here on earth.
-
2016-01-10 at 5:59 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
The irony in this paragraph is staggering. You say I've only defined color as objective then follow up with telling me how color is actually the definition you pulled out of your ass and that definition happens to be subjective.
The point seems continually lost on you however, that it doesn't matter which definition is "correct" because we agree on the objectivity of light and rainbows are composed of light. Rainbows are consistently observable and detectable with equipment with no subjective experience and thus must be objectively existent. Wether or not you take color to mean the perception of wavelengths of light or a property of light itself it doesn't change anything.
Which properties does a lava lamp have that are objective. Be specific, name a few.
OK, this is back to the definition of color again but let's take your definition. You would still admit that rainbows and the light that composes them has objective properties. Anything with objective properties must, if it exists, do so objectively. Thus rainbows are still objective no matter what meaning you put on "color".
Oh wow, nice argument bro. Ready for this sick comeback?
Try to pay attention Lanny. I didn't pull some definition out of my ass just to support my position. Rather, this is the definition that the facts happen to support, therefore it is the correct definition. I didn't just decide one day that colour is not objective. People have been using the word in this way long before I was alive because this is what the facts tell us about colour.
You maintain that the "perception of colours" and "colours themselves" are two different things, yet you refuse to differentiate between colours and the objective properties of objects which cause you to see colours. This is an obvious flaw in the way you think about colour. You have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that colour exists beyond subjective perception, while I have clearly demonstrated that colours are not objective and are different in important ways from the objective properties of objects which cause us to perceive colours.
I already listed some of the objective properties of a lava lamp earlier in this thread. Try to pay more attention in the future.
A rainbow is not defined as "light". A rainbow is defined as "the appearance of a colourful arch in the sky". Therefore a rainbow is composed of colours. Colours are not objective, therefore neither is a rainbow. The appearance of a rainbow is caused by a very specific set of circumstances, circumstances which objectively exist. However the appearance of a rainbow is different in important ways from the specific circumstances which cause it to appear.
And no Lanny, I'm actually not wrong. My argument is entirely legitimate, valid, acceptable and correct. I'm not "misusing" any words at all, rather, you are simply refusing to move past the semantics, face the facts about colour and accept the truth about rainbows. -
2016-01-09 at 6:42 PM UTC in The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect[SIZE=14px]* Chapter Three:
Caroline and Anne-Marie[/SIZE]
Prime Intellect had been stonewalling anyone who asked about Lawrence's whereabouts for a long, long time. Although it could be remarkably obstinate, though, it could sometimes be tricked because it just didn't think the same way humans did. That was how Caroline found out it had been over a hundred years since anyone had seen Lawrence.
Through centuries of flirting with the limits of what Prime Intellect would permit, Caroline had developed a certain instinct about its reactions. And she sensed, if not blood, then the telltale odor of frying microchips. She pressed it into a corner she couldn't see, but which she knew must be there:
[FONT=courier new]> Who was that person?
* That information is private.
> How did they get to see Lawrence?
* That information is private.[/FONT]
She cracked her knuckles and stared at the screen. It had been a long time since she had wanted anything quite as bad as she wanted to rip Lawrence's nuts off; since that was pretty pointless in Cyberspace, though, she was willing to settle for a verbal confrontation. If she could just find the son of a bitch. Hell, she'd met him at that fucking ten-year anniversary party.
[FONT=courier new]> How can a person just fucking disappear in Cyberspace?
* All that is necessary is to request the maximum level of Task Challenge Quarantine.[/FONT]
Caroline blinked. Prime Intellect's urge to be helpful would be its ruination every time.
[FONT=courier new]> What is involved in setting up a Task Challenge Quarantine?
* You must define an environment and a task which any callers must complete within that environment before their requests for a meeting will be passed on to you. You could then make as much of your business as practical private, so that I would not relate it to inquirers. You would then be completely isolated from the rest of humanity.
> Could I even make it a private matter that there was a Task Challenge?
* Yes.
> How would anyone ever figure out how to get in touch with me at all?
* They would have to guess.[/FONT]
A grin slowly spread across Caroline's face. Got you now, she thought. Then she typed, with deliberate care:
[FONT=courier new]> I would like to accept Dr. Lawrence's Task Challenge.[/FONT]
To her mild surprise, the environment didn't change around her. Instead, another sentence appeared.
[FONT=courier new]* You must agree to the following Contract terms: You will have no contact with me until you leave Dr. Lawrence's environment through death or his directive to me.
> That's a Death contract.
* It was originated for Death sports, but has other applications.
> What's the time limit?
* There is no time limit. Dr. Lawrence requires an indefinite Contract.[/FONT]
And at that Caroline's blood went cold, because Prime Intellect wasn't supposed to accept indefinite Contracts. And Caroline Frances Hubert herself was the reason for that.
Which meant Prime Intellect had either lied to a whole bunch of people, in direct contravention of the Second Law, or it was suffering from a noticeable case of schizophrenia.
Her mind was made up, but her fingers still shook as she typed:
[FONT=courier new]> I agree to the terms.[/FONT] -
2016-01-09 at 6:30 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Once again, you've demonstrated that the perception of color is non-objective. This has nothing to do with the objectivity of color itself, just as perception of lavalamps may be subjective this does not make lavalamps themselves non-objective.
"The claim that lavalamps are objective because the word is commonly used that way is idiotic"
"Earth" has always referred to the planet we live on in common usage. A geocentric model of the universe is a misunderstanding of a property of the Earth, specifically its location. If we had used the term "earth" to refer to "the center of the universe" then we'd have been wrong in a different way, that is mistaken identity of our planet for "earth". Regardless, the meaning of the word earth has always been determined by common usage, just like meaning of any word is determined by common or technical usage, both of which support the notion of objective color.
Because you're misusing the term color. And like I've told you many, many, times: even if I grant you your (incorrect) terms it doesn't change the status of rainbows as objectively existent phenomena. The light which composes rainbows is objective, possesses objective wavelengths and is emitted in objective patterns. If you want to try and pull some new definition for color out your ass it doesn't change the fact that rainbows are objective physical phenomena.
Pay attention, Lanny. You have not demonstrated that colour is objective, you have only defined it as objective. Defining something as objective doesn't make magically it objective. If it did, then any ridiculous fantasy could be defined into reality. That is not the case. On the other hand, I have clearly demonstrated that colour is not objective. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘coloured’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colours we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive.
You have also claimed that the word "colour" can only be used as you have defined it, as an objective property. I have demonstrated that is not true. I have shown that there are definitions of colour as something non-objective, and I have demonstrated a common use of the word colour as a description of entirely subjective experiences like imagining the colour red when you read the word RED.
A lava lamp does have objective properties. These properties can be measured and verified as objective. However, the colour of this lava lamp is not one of those objective properties. Different people will look at that lavalamp and see different colours. This lava lamps clearly posses objective physical properties that cause you to see it as coloured, of course, but those physical properties are different in important ways from the colours you and I perceive subjectively.
You claim I am "misusing" the word colour and that I am incorrect. But you are wrong. The way I am using the word colour is entirely legitimate, valid, acceptable and correct. I have demonstrated this in various ways throughout this entire thread, and your inability to accept the facts do not not make them any less true. The fact is colours are not objective. And therefore, neither are rainbows. Rainbows are an optical illusion created by a very specific set of circumstances, and while I would be the first to admit that those circumstances have an objective and physical existence, I maintain that those circumstances are different in important ways from the rainbows we perceive. -
2016-01-05 at 11:30 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?To summarize, people almost universally believe that objects look coloured because they are coloured, just as we experience them. The sky looks blue because it is blue, grass looks green because it is green, and blood looks red because it is red.
As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘coloured’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colours we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive.
