Are you guys suggesting that we simply do nothing? Just allow people to bring on whatever, whenever? Here's my question: You have a group of people that want to use planes to cause damage to people and property. They are suicidal. How do you stop them from getting to their goal? Yes, the back and forth game is a terrible solution. Is there a better one?
Are you guys suggesting that we simply do nothing? Just allow people to bring on whatever, whenever?
Yes. We do it on trains, no problem.
Here's my question: You have a group of people that want to use planes to cause damage to people and property. They are suicidal. How do you stop them from getting to their goal?
The same way we've stopped all the other ones up until this point, intelligence.
You clearly still have not read Schneier's blog. Nor did you read the article recently discussed on the podcast about how security works at the airport in Israel. I suggest you do before you embarrass yourself more on this topic.
His blog was interesting, but I actually found stronger arguments for what you're getting at in other articles that linked from it. That being said, while I see your points more clearly now and agree that the whole thing is silly, we've veered WAY off the original 'rational' point of argument.
Allow me to summarise the next few pages for you - Rym and Scott are ignorant, indignant, and convinced that they are absolutely 100% right, because they read the blog of a security expert. They are, in this case, damn good examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Everyone who argues with them is obviously an idiot, because they fly a lot, and that clearly qualifies them as experts. This will continue until A)You get bored of their shite, and the repeating the same shitpot arguments over and over or B)You stump them, and lacking the chutzpah to say "Sorry about that, I might have been wrong on that one" they dismiss you as either a Troll or an idiot, and won't reply to you.
With that done, Can we move the fuck on? This is the philosophy thread, Not the "Rym and Scott display their ignorance about any non-computer security AGAIN" thread.
Hey, maybe if I make fun of Rym and Scott while avoiding any real criticism of their arguments I can look cool in front of everyone. Man, I'm such a badass.
Hey, maybe if I make fun of Rym and Scott while avoiding any real criticism of their arguments I can look cool in front of everyone. Man, I'm such a badass.
Just hate to repeat myself, dear heart.
He's... so bad... Can't resist....
I wish I could. As much as I like you guys, Jesus, you annoy the piss out of me sometimes. But hey, I'm a loudmouth bastard. I can't help myself.
I think their stance is more that we should be very careful with what we call knowledge and how we treat the facts we know, less masturbating their own egos.
What do you define as will when you say "free will"?
Yes, "what is knowledge" is the age-old question, isn't it? Science is applied skepticism, though, and scientists know this. There's no such thing as true knowledge nor total certainty; science simply has degrees of confidence and likelihood. However, instead of saying "It is quite probable that X occurs" for every single statement, we say "X happens when conditions A, B, and C are met" and account for the uncertainty in our writings.
The "what do you really know" argument is interesting, but at a point becomes functionally worthless. I know enough stuff to keep you from dying of some horrible diseases.
"Free will" has been otherwise defined in this thread. What we really need to start talking about is apparent will; it may not be truly "free," but we still have the appearance of self-determination.
Here's your Hegelian Dialectic for the thread: Science produces knowledge through material experimentation. Philosophy produces immaterial nonsense through sitting around wanking with words. Thesis: data. Antithesis: gobbledygook.
loneliness + alienation + fear + despair + self-worth ÷ mockery ÷ condemnation ÷ misunderstanding x guilt x shame x failure x judgment n=y where y=hope and n=folly, love=lies, life=death, self=dark side
Maybe I should have rather asked what freedom is. I'll try to structure my argument in an understandable way.
Let us take a painting as a metaphor. If I were to analyze what paint was used and maybe even at what time it was painted I'd take samples of paint and analyze it. If I were to on the other hand interpret and analyze the meaning of the painting and its aesthetic value I wouldn't analyze the paint, or the material at all really, but what has been painted. There is obviously a link between the two since what has been painted has to have some material on and with which it was painted. Still no one would start to argue about the type or the brand of paint being used concerning the meaning of the painting. There are different levels on which such a painting can be analyzed which shouldn't be mixed together. Similar to this is what some people think brain science is doing, explaining what we think. But brain science, at least at the moment, can not explain what we are thinking. Brain science can only tell us about the physical requirements for will. And this is where freedom comes in to play and why I asked what you understand under free will. Long before brain science the argument could have been made that we are, in a way, determined. It seems quite obvious that with out all the things that influence us we wouldn't be who we are and that we are thus determined. But this isn't what I would understand under free will. Free will is more the ability to judge over what we want, in the sense that when I judge differently I want different things. The ability to judge has little to do with our brain. So the opposite of freedom or free will wouldn't be determinism but constraint and the opposite of determinism would be indeterminism. We are free to judge.
loneliness + alienation + fear + despair + self-worth ÷ mockery ÷ condemnation ÷ misunderstanding x guilt x shame x failure x judgment n=y where y=hope and n=folly, love=lies, life=death, self=dark side
loneliness + alienation + fear + despair + self-worth ÷ mockery ÷ condemnation ÷ misunderstanding x guilt x shame x failure x judgment n=y where y=hope and n=folly, love=lies, life=death, self=dark side
Unless you are implying that Darkseid is behind all the events of NGE, your geek cred seriously just tanked.
I have no idea who the hell that is. Some supervillain apparently.
The son of Yuga Khan and Queen Heggra, Prince Uxas, second in line to the throne of Apokolips, plotted to seize power over the planet. When his brother, Drax, attempted to claim the fabled Omega Force, Uxas murdered him and took the power for himself; transforming him into a rock-like creature, and taking a new name: Darkseid.[1][2] At some point, he fell in love with an Apokoliptian scientist named Suli, with whom he had a son, Kalibak; however, Suli was poisoned by Desaad on Heggra's behalf, who believed that Suli was corrupting her son. Following Suli's death, Darkseid's heart grew even colder, and he had Desaad poison Heggra, finally becoming the supreme monarch of Apokolips. Darkseid had briefly been forced by his mother to marry Tigra, with whom he also had a son. After murdering his mother, Darkseid had both Tigra and their son, Orion, banished from Apokolips.
There we go. Fascinating.
Of the underwear pervert universes, I've only ever really been interested in the X-Stuff and Batman. DC is basically "the Batman company" for all I care.
Let us take a painting as a metaphor. If I were to analyze what paint was used and maybe even at what time it was painted I'd take samples of paint and analyze it. If I were to on the other hand interpret and analyze the meaning of the painting and its aesthetic value I wouldn't analyze the paint, or the material at all really, but what has been painted. There is obviously a link between the two since what has been painted has to have some material on and with which it was painted. Still no one would start to argue about the type or the brand of paint being used concerning the meaning of the painting. There are different levels on which such a painting can be analyzed which shouldn't be mixed together.
The different levels are illusory. Also, the specific type of paint used could potentially be very important in a painting.
Similar to this is what some people think brain science is doing, explaining what we think. But brain science, at least at the moment, can not explain what we are thinking. Brain science can only tell us about the physical requirements for will. And this is where freedom comes in to play and why I asked what you understand under free will. Long before brain science the argument could have been made that we are, in a way, determined. It seems quite obvious that with out all the things that influence us we wouldn't be who we are and that we are thus determined. But this isn't what I would understand under free will. Free will is more the ability to judge over what we want, in the sense that when I judge differently I want different things. The ability to judge has little to do with our brain. So the opposite of freedom or free will wouldn't be determinism but constraint and the opposite of determinism would be indeterminism. We are free to judge.
Sure, we can judge, but our judgement has everything to do with our brains.
I did a podcast episode about how my personal philosophy is influenced by science fictional ideas. One day I'll write up the ideas as an essay, but you can listen here if you care.
The basic idea is that if...
Ah shit, it's a bit too complex to wrap up in a short forum post.
Also, the specific type of paint used could potentially be very important in a painting.
I knew someone was going to point this out. Yes it could in some cases, but that is beside the point. The specific brand of paint may be a better example.
Sure, we can judge, but our judgement haseverythingto do with our brains.
The brain cannot decide/ judge anything, judging has no logical place when we speak about the brain. Decisions can only be made where we talk of reasons and thinking.
We might not be able to think of the painting in terms of elementary particles or quantum wavefunctions, but the most basic level is in fact the only one that really exists.
Sure, we can judge, but our judgement haseverythingto do with our brains.
The brain cannot decide/ judge anything, judging has no logical place when we speak about the brain. Decisions can only be made where we talk of reasons and thinking.
Thinking is a function of the brain, so I don't see your point.
Thinking and neurophysiological processes are not the same. Thoughts are obviously not independent from our brains, as I have also already said, but neurophysiological processes don't make us decide something or judge something, we judge.
Thinking and neurophysiological processes are not the same. Thoughts are obviously not independent from our brains, as I have also already said, but neurophysiological processes don't make us decide something or judge something, we judge.
See, I disagree with you there. What evidence do you have for the existence of anything nonphysical?
Comments
Here's my question: You have a group of people that want to use planes to cause damage to people and property. They are suicidal. How do you stop them from getting to their goal?
Yes, the back and forth game is a terrible solution. Is there a better one?
You clearly still have not read Schneier's blog. Nor did you read the article recently discussed on the podcast about how security works at the airport in Israel. I suggest you do before you embarrass yourself more on this topic.
Allow me to summarise the next few pages for you - Rym and Scott are ignorant, indignant, and convinced that they are absolutely 100% right, because they read the blog of a security expert. They are, in this case, damn good examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Everyone who argues with them is obviously an idiot, because they fly a lot, and that clearly qualifies them as experts. This will continue until A)You get bored of their shite, and the repeating the same shitpot arguments over and over or B)You stump them, and lacking the chutzpah to say "Sorry about that, I might have been wrong on that one" they dismiss you as either a Troll or an idiot, and won't reply to you.
With that done, Can we move the fuck on? This is the philosophy thread, Not the "Rym and Scott display their ignorance about any non-computer security AGAIN" thread.
The "what do you really know" argument is interesting, but at a point becomes functionally worthless. I know enough stuff to keep you from dying of some horrible diseases.
"Free will" has been otherwise defined in this thread. What we really need to start talking about is apparent will; it may not be truly "free," but we still have the appearance of self-determination.
But seriously, I'm easier to get on with in person.
SYNTHESIZE, YOU NASTY, SHORT BRUTES.
Let us take a painting as a metaphor. If I were to analyze what paint was used and maybe even at what time it was painted I'd take samples of paint and analyze it. If I were to on the other hand interpret and analyze the meaning of the painting and its aesthetic value I wouldn't analyze the paint, or the material at all really, but what has been painted. There is obviously a link between the two since what has been painted has to have some material on and with which it was painted. Still no one would start to argue about the type or the brand of paint being used concerning the meaning of the painting. There are different levels on which such a painting can be analyzed which shouldn't be mixed together.
Similar to this is what some people think brain science is doing, explaining what we think. But brain science, at least at the moment, can not explain what we are thinking. Brain science can only tell us about the physical requirements for will. And this is where freedom comes in to play and why I asked what you understand under free will. Long before brain science the argument could have been made that we are, in a way, determined. It seems quite obvious that with out all the things that influence us we wouldn't be who we are and that we are thus determined. But this isn't what I would understand under free will. Free will is more the ability to judge over what we want, in the sense that when I judge differently I want different things. The ability to judge has little to do with our brain. So the opposite of freedom or free will wouldn't be determinism but constraint and the opposite of determinism would be indeterminism.
We are free to judge.
Of the underwear pervert universes, I've only ever really been interested in the X-Stuff and Batman. DC is basically "the Batman company" for all I care.
The basic idea is that if...
Ah shit, it's a bit too complex to wrap up in a short forum post.