Randall
J. Randall Murphy
An excellent post actually. It would have been more relevant over here on this thread though .sorry if this is not particularly relevant .
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
An excellent post actually. It would have been more relevant over here on this thread though .sorry if this is not particularly relevant .
F**ck me thats some hardcore riding. I hope that fella was alright. He did well to keep it a controlled release.I wonder what test results NASA has done, along with simulations with high speed car racers, for the high speed decision making they have to make to succeed?
the guy on the bike answers that for you, i will edit in the time so you can hear his exact description, but he say it will take a whole week of practice to get your mind upto speed, he says i mean look how fast we are going, but after a week its alright, i can even pick out individual faces in the crowd, proof positive, and to demonstrate the point watch this guy lay the bike on its side so as to part company from it, otherwise he would of hit the wall at the junction not the wall on the other side of the road as the bike did, watch this, only the last showing of the crash ls at full speed [190mph] the first couple are slowed, watch him push the handle bars down to get clear, that without doubt saved his life.
this is being filmed at the spot where he puts the bike down, gives you an idea how fast 190mph is, now thats just feet away from where this guy underneath [2nd vid] decides to part company with his machine at that point, how fast iiis his brain working do ya reckon, the title says 160mph+, but i can assure you on the big bikes its 190mph
dont forget the first 2 are slowmo full screen is best, watch him push the bike away just as he leaves the frame, its very clear, in the 2nd slowmo..
and they just carry on racing, thats the isle of man for ya.
Interesting paper, but it has the same issues as all other papers when it comes down to the crunch. Consider this quote from the paper regarding what Reflexive Monism is:Here's an interesting paper by Max Velmans concerning "reflexive monism" --
http://cogprints.org/6103/1/Reflexive_Monism_final_version_December_2007.pdf
Consciousness and the Singularity - David Chalmers on the Singularity (42 minutes)
Chalmers' assumption that "hardware isn't the problem" ( 5:15 ) is problematic because we still don't know what the full requirements are, mainly because the details of what constitutes intelligence and how it applies to AI is still a matter of debate in and of itself, and even if we get that figured out, it isn't simply a "software problem" as he suggests. For example, some CPU circuitry is designed to specifically accommodate the software that will be run on it, so we can't know for sure what the engineering of the hardware will entail until the "software bottleneck" as he calls it is resolved. It may be an architecture that is much different than a vast array of CPU chips like we see in use today.
The interesting part happens after 25:00 when he starts talking about integration. While I see intellectual enhancement as plausible, I'm not convinced that you can upload consciousness itself. I think it is entirely possible, if not likely, that consciousness goes beyond sheer computational power. That's not to say that I don't believe that consciousness is the product of a functioning brain ( emergence ). I think that emergence is the theory that makes the most sense of the bunch, but I'm not convinced that it [ consciousness ] can emerge from just any kind of brain. I think that it is the circumstance for AI, that only a brain specifically engineered to give rise to consciousness can give rise to it, and an electronic CPU wafer may not facilitate emergence.
Yes, right, that's the thread Tyger derailed this one to. I won't be posting there and I'm removing or moving most my content from it.I originally posted this in the "Consciousness and the Paranormal" thread - there is a lively discussion going on over there now, you all are welcome to join in!
The only thing that is objectively real are the physical particles in the here and now. At any given moment they ( along with everything else in the universe ) exist at some particular spacetime coordinate. The past no longer exists in an objectively real sense and neither does the future. So in an objectively real sense, at any given moment, there can be no vibration, and therefore no temperature as defined in those terms.Temperature as defined as the speed at which particles are vibrating is an objective reality; there will be a "true" speed at which the particles are vibrating. We have instruments that can measure this speed. Whether these measurements are accurate is beside the point. The point is that the vibration is an objective reality, as is the speed of the vibration. (At least as far as particles really exist; hence the problem of sussing out the three kinds if reality. If particles really exist, and if they really vibrate, then there will an objective speed at which they vibrate.)
Correct.As far as whether one thinks a particular speed of vibrating particles is "hot" or "cold" or "warm," that is subjective.
You've got a similar problem when it comes to speed as you do with temperature. In fact it's exactly the nature of this problem that led to special relativity theory. The physical car is an objective reality. However it's speed is entirely dependent on the relationship between it and some arbitrary reference point. Here's an intro video that will help to illustrate:If that idea is too abstract, consider the speed of a car. A car will move at a speed that can be measured by a speedometer and both the car and its speed will exist in objective reality (given that cars really exist and can move).
Whether we think a given speed is fast or slow is subjective - that the car moves is an objective reality, as is the speed at which it moves.
Again, I think you should consider separating those two ideas. Physical things ( objects ) are objective realities, while scientific explanations of, "how those physical objects behave and interact" is objective information.Objective reality is not only composed of physical objectives but also how those physical objects behave and interact.
Yes, right, that's the thread Tyger derailed this one to. I won't be posting there and I'm removing or moving most my content from it.
Please forgive me, but meandering versus derailing, and the subtleties between the two, isn't something I want to get into with respect to the history of this thread. I'd just as soon move on with something of relevance to the subject matter that the thread was intended for, and in that spirit I responded here to a couple of points philosopher David Chalmers made.dont most threads that get large, meander along with 2 or 3 different convo's going on at once, sometimes drifting abit out of context a lil while, no biggy is it.
Yes, right, that's the thread Tyger derailed this one to. I won't be posting there and I'm removing or moving most my content from it.
Going forward you can assume that if you get a response from me, it's never going to be on that thread. BTW, try typing "chalmers" (without the quotes) into the search above and check "search this thread only". When I did that I found over 60 posts on this thread that mention Chalmers going back to October of last year, mostly between you and I, because this is where you and I started with Chalmers before this thread was derailed ( IMO ) by the person on my ignore list. So although I check your content ( on all threads ) from time to time because I find your input a notch above most, I won't be responding there, ever.Again, there is already a discussion of issues around this video of Chalmers on the Philosophy, Science and the Paranormal thread and all are welcome to join that discussion.
OMG where have you been? You have been missed. NOTE: I would have responded on the thread you had posted the above on, but I refuse to participate there because of its sorted past ( a derail from this thread ), so forgive me if I try to derail it back to where it started .
Thread Derailed
ufology -- why not stop doing that and participate on the continuing thread taken up from this one at the point when it hit a wall?