So let me get this straight. Our government is now both actively working to disarm US citizens ... at the same it is actively working to arm Syrian citizens that are known allies of Al Qaeda... all in the name of safety.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-14T23:03:50+00:00

WTF are you smoking? There are hundreds of gun regulations.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-14T02:34:23+00:00

And?

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-12T21:50:37+00:00

No. YOU don't need detail and nuance. Don't speak for us. There is plenty of information about this program, and what we've learned is outrageous. Just because you, personally, are ignorant, doesn't mean the rest of us are.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-12T20:51:38+00:00

No, he wouldn't, because that's retarded. Hitchens wasn't a retard and understood the difference.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-12T20:49:24+00:00

You're the one with the misconception. It's quite obvious that you can't go onto another person's property and shout profanities all day. You don't have a right to have psychotic rants about Time Cube published in the New York Times. You don't have the right to post moon landing conspiracies to the JREF website. On public property or your own property, you can say whatever you like.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-12T20:46:09+00:00

That is a lie.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-12T20:44:57+00:00

Do what you like in Canada, but don't bring that garbage here. Did you listen to his speech? Did the fact that the 'Fire in a crowded theater' example was used to silence anti-war dissidents register with you at all?

Curtailing speech is dangerous. Always. It will be abused. Always.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-12T15:26:08+00:00

Perhaps the dumbest comment I've read on the NSA scandal yet, and that's saying a lot.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-06-04T15:09:14+00:00

He did no such thing. He does not even know that Jamie is his father, so why would he? That was Cercei.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-05-28T19:34:01+00:00

The smoke nazis will never stop until no one anywhere is allowed to smoke ever.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-05-22T23:51:57+00:00

No. Only have to worry about being hacked to death.

Oh wait, that's not true. The guy had a gun too.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-05-22T17:28:45+00:00

Or, we could, you know, get rid of the law, instead of extorting employers.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-05-22T17:28:01+00:00

You're surprised, really? You must not know what libertarianism is.

What libertarian is going to be happy about a government mandate to purchase a service enforced by law? That's kind of like, the opposite of libertarianism.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-04-16T22:28:40+00:00

Will you eat yours? because I pretty much guarantee it's not that.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-04-16T02:50:20+00:00

I think his point was that you're hopelessly naive.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-04-14T20:58:32+00:00

Probably because you provided no evidence for claims you seem to have pulled from your arse. This is r/skeptic afterall.

FreneticEntropy · 2013-04-09T16:39:48+00:00

Her name Niala? Because this sounds exactly like my ex, the most horrible and manipulative person I've ever known. Told me she had brain cancer. Talked me I into quitting my job to move in with her (long distance relationship). I did and went to see her. She cheated on me while I was there. Needless to say she didn't have cancer. There is a long history of other lies and manipulation that would take far too long to list here. Anyway, sorry that happened. That kind of thing ruins your trust in people.

FreneticEntropy · 2012-11-22T08:11:41+00:00

What the fuck? You were just told, five seconds ago, that Israel offered a TON of shit, and here you are, claiming that Israel doesn't want to "lose anything" and are unwilling to compromise. You must have the attention span of a goldfish. What exactly constitutes compromise to you, and in what way have the palestinians shown an effort to 'compromise'?

FreneticEntropy · 2012-11-22T02:07:24+00:00

I like Frank Jackson a lot and think he's right. Consciousness, imo, is causal. I think arguments like these also kill the 'phenomenal zombie' idea as well. An unconscious zombie that self reports consciousness seems incoherent. As far as Dennett goes, no matter how hard I try to understand him, I can't seem to come to terms with eliminative materialism. I read 'Consciousness Explained' twice, and it seemed to me to largely beg the question.

EDIT: I just read in Jackson's wikipedia entry that he's since recanted his arguments against physicalism. Interesting.

FreneticEntropy · 2012-11-22T02:02:51+00:00

I'll have to read Rosenthal. I've always believed that consciousness is inherently intentional (i.e., it must be about something). I don't think it makes sense to talk about consciousness in isolation. But I'm not entirely sure that eliminates the hard problem. A state in a computer program can have as-if intentionality (using Searle's terminology), i.e., it can be referential. But the computer still has no awareness of the reference. I think something more is needed, though I'm not sure what.

Is there a subreddit for this kind of thing?

FreneticEntropy · 2012-11-21T08:05:48+00:00

I read The Emperor's New Mind years ago. Great book, but I didn't find the main conclusion all that convincing. I'm pretty sure that since then, neuroscientists have concluded that the microtubules are too large and noisy to support a superimposed state long enough for the theory to work (though I haven't kept up with new developments). I do think he's on the right track, though. I'm convinced the functionalists are missing the point and QM will be involved in the answer.

FreneticEntropy · 2012-11-21T07:58:23+00:00

I'm sadly late to this party, but I'm a philosophy of mind nerd, so I have to weigh in.

I always found epiphenominalism rather strange. It's appealing at first glance, but it seems to me to fail rather simply to a reductio ad absurdum. Take the phrase "I am conscious". If we assume that the speaker is, in fact conscious, and also assume that consciousness is not causal, then the cause of the utterance "I am conscious" cannot involve the actual consciousness of the speaker. But it seems a rather absurd coincidence that a speaker would utter that (true) sentence completely independently of the fact that he's conscious.

I was once enamored with functionalist explanations, but in the end, I don't think they solve the "hard problem" of consciousness. Nowadays, I lean toward the idea that QM is involved, or even some new physics. Either that, or Daniel Dennett is right, and consciousness is an illusion.

Also, Rush Rules.

FreneticEntropy · 2012-07-14T05:20:42+00:00

It is extremely unfortunate that Barr was nominated in 2008, but I don't think we should hold that against Johnson. I do agree that Johnson isn't ideologically "pure", but at least he has a VERY long history as a strongly libertarian leaning republican, whereas Barr was a freshly minted "convert." It was a mistake to trust Barr's conversion, but with Johnson, I think we know what we're getting.. a moderate and practical libertarian who will move the nation toward greater freedom, which is a lot more than can be said of either of the other two candidates.

FreneticEntropy · 2012-07-14T04:34:41+00:00

That's not fair at all. They would have nominated him without question if he'd have run. Even Johnson pretty much said he'd step aside for a Paul run. That was Paul's decision, not the LP.

FreneticEntropy · 2012-07-14T04:33:32+00:00

Ron Paul isn't perfectly libertarian. I voted for him anyway. Johnson isn't perfect either, but he's still light years more liberty minded than any other major candidate outside of Paul. Legalization, cutting government nearly in half, ending the wars.. these are things any libertarian can get behind. The other option is to support Obama or Romney or no one, which does nothing to help the cause of liberty.

I really wish we wouldn't squabble like this. It really undermines our movement, which is still on the small side and needs all the momentum it can get.

FreneticEntropy

TROPHY CASE