Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of Kevin Freeheart
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kevin Freeheart

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15
One factor ignored by the video is the fact that we can't see electrons. They're too damn small. The way we "see" things like that is watch for echos of their existance. We've never seen a black hole, but can theorize they exist because the properties of a certain kind of space do things that would happen if that thing were there.

We might be wrong though. Invisible Pink Unicorns might exhibit properties exactly like "black holes".

The same has to be admitted when using "echos" to study electrons. This is what the "change the outcome by observing" means. That has to be factored into every "fact" gleaned from science. Skepticism and critical thinking are important parts of the scientific process.

Quote from: 'orion'
Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes?

Yes, at one point I had this mega fascination with that concept, and I happened to be doing my philosophy course in college. Parallel universii and the "flame concept" of human awareness pretty much sums up my view of how "everything" works.

When you light a candle, you see the flame burning. But flames aren't really "things", they're a process. The flame is actually a chain reaction as the molecules oxidize rapidly, this process is the flame, but the actual parts of the flame (molecules) are different every second yet we STILL conceptualize it as a single thing.

In kind of the same way, humans are "processes" and not things. The body that is "me" today isn't the same as the one when I was a 2 year old. My brain isn't the same, my experiences not the same yet I can still use the pronoun "I" without causing my brain to collapse in confusion.

In essence, I believe that at "the moment of creation" (however you define it) all possible universes, as well as all possible moments in "time" are created and exist as snapshots forever still. It is not the "passage of time" that's happening per se, but our awareness moving from one snapshot to another. When we imagine, we're simply viewing "snapshots" from another universe/time and when we "remember" we're simply looking back to a different snapshot.

But here's the thing. If that's true, it doesn't matter because I am still "me" and confined to the track of my thoughts. Perhaps making one choice allows the other choice the shift into another universe or progression, but since I am trapped by this universe (and presumably, everyone else in this universe) it doesn't matter. It's incidentally why I rejected the notion of God. I hold open the possibility that there is a God, but it's clear he's not interacting with the world and that he's decreed that humans are unable to detect him/it. Because of this, true or not, it's entirely irrelevant.

Quote from: 'orion'
If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.

And if you think about it this way, you can kill someone because there exists a theoretical person who was not killed. I'm not calling or implying that either your or Ian are or will be killers but this is the extreme progression of the idea. If a person doesn't limit someone's options because those options exist in some theoretical universe then what's wrong with government or violence (but I repeat myself)? Either you recognize that there is a single universe, in which you are responsible for your actions, or you recognize there are multiple universes and the existence of them are entirely irrelevant in every way which matters to your life.

The Polling Pit / Re: Poll for white males
« on: September 08, 2008, 01:15:33 AM »
I clicked "Asian" and "Other" because ethnicity doesn't matter to me one bit, yet there are some traits that are more common in certain ethnicities.

Quote from: 'FTL_Ian'
Thinking positive is fine.  I'm just more deliberate about it, and have attached a few metaphysical beliefs to it.  What's wrong with that?

Firstly, you're welcome to believe what you want. I'm not saying don't stop. I'm simply pointing out why I find the idea to be a bit frightening and fantastical.

The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.

With the metaphysical, I always have to go back to one of history's greatest philosophers... Homer J. Simpson. "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?". Can the Law of Attraction cause another person to think differently? Act in a way they wouldn't normally want to? If yes, the idea that I may not be responsible for my own thoughts and actions, and others may not, is alarming. If the Law of Attraction is NOT capable of doing those things, then you're truly not capable of controling the universe unless you posit that human thought is somehow outside of the universe. If there are limits to what a person can do with the Law of Attraction, I don't see how it really is of any benefit beyond those which come from positive thinking.

Then again, like I said, I really don't care. It's crackpottery, and you're welcome to think as you want and do what you want. I like knowing my universe has rhyme and reason, and that there are logical and predictable (if largely complex) outcomes to actions. There's a certain kind of cheapness that comes from the idea that thinking about a thing, rather than taking actions and making choices, makes that thing happen.

General / Re: Mozilla to release new open source browser today!
« on: September 06, 2008, 06:37:13 PM »
This isn't a "new browser" this is an incrimental update to an existing, already decently well known browser.

Updates, optimizations and new features are all nice, but this is nothing "stellar".

As much as I love the flexibility of Firefox, I still eagerly await the day that it's digital ass is stomped into the mud of the internet. WebKit is fast becoming a standard in the FOSS (which is important, since the internet is no longer stuck on black boxes from Dell or similar) and I'll be happy when a browser with the extendability of Firefox comes out that utilizes WebKit.

Down with Gecko!

The Polling Pit / Re: What Motor's Drivin Your Interwebs?
« on: September 04, 2008, 06:25:03 PM »
Quote from: 'BonerJoe'
Why you need all that shit just to run Linux?

Not all Linux boxen are for viewing porn. :) I've got 4GB on mine because I use memory intensive KVM instances. The processor choice would make sense to reduce compile times which matter if you're a developer, devoted hacker or masochist running a source based distro.

Quote from: 'BonerJoe'
And why go with a 65nm processors when they have faster and cooler 45nm ones out?

He probably builds on price/performance ratio.

The Polling Pit / Re: What Motor's Drivin Your Interwebs?
« on: September 03, 2008, 02:30:27 PM »
I traded my dual Opteron system for an Intel Core 2 Duo because at the time I was super excited that Intel had released their 3D graphics driver as Free Software. It's a move I regret quite a bit, because my experience with Intel has sucked.

Currently running Intel on AMD64 arch, running Debian.

I don't mind pantheism, but I do mind the so-called "Law of Attraction".

Human brains are designed to be efficient and lazy (same thing, really) and as a certain synaptic pathway is used it becomes easier to use. This is true of complex sets of pathways which correlate to our general outlook on life.

When we think positively, our brains begin building a positive pattern, making positivity more easy to identify. The same is true of negativity. So I very much agree that "that you think is important".

Where my issue with the "Law of Attraction" comes from is the belief that thoughts CREATE reality. This is utter bull. One example Ian gave on the show was oil, which was once considered a nuisance until human thought made it useful. No, oil was useful before that moment for the same reasons it is useful today, but that potential was unrealized. The "usefulness" capacity existed prior to a human thinking it was useful.

That distinction is important to me. I think it does a huge discredit to the ideas of positive thinking and personal achievement to wrap it up in some metaphysical BS.

The Polling Pit / Re: What Vehicle(s) Are You Driving On The Interwebs?
« on: September 02, 2008, 04:14:38 PM »
for those who aren't hardware savvy I'd add that the easiest and quickest way to "run faster" is to max out your RAM.
the second most common traffic jam is just that...too many programs fighting over the RAM...solution is to shut down anything/everything that you don't need.

for those still on dial-up(I know...it's hard to believe)...get the big pipe(broadband) and...yep...you know it...ENJOY!
(DSL in your area may, or may not...be up to the "big pipe" task...buyer beware as always)

I dunno if I'd agree. I could be super technical and get into specifics, but generally I'd say that the "average" American hit's a break even point with hardware sold in the last two years. I've got one of the fastest internet connections in my area and my wife's PC (AMD Sempron 2800+ *32-bit!* with 768 MB of RAM and IDE hard drives) is slowed considerably by the fact that the internet simply sucks.

I'd personally put my money into a faster internet connection than more hardware especially if your computer is more than about three years old (in which case the rarity begins increasing price for parts).

The Polling Pit / Re: What Vehicle(s) Are You Driving On The Interwebs?
« on: September 02, 2008, 02:32:53 PM »
Mac OS X (10.5) on this computer (Not an Apple) and dual booting Debian Linux.

Debian Linux at home on my main PC, LinuxMint on my wife's. My fileserver runs Debian Linux. One of my phones runs Linux and Qtopia, the other one runs Openmoko, which is also a Linux variation.

No clue what runs on my routers.

The Polling Pit / Re: What Vehicle(s) Are You Driving On The Interwebs?
« on: September 02, 2008, 02:17:38 PM »
Macs are personal computers (PC), I'm not sure how to respond in the poll.

What do you mean by "PC" and what do you mean by "Mac"?

Quote from: 'MacFall'
Do you qualify "revenge" as any act of force not performed in self-defense during the commission of the initiated force?

I think I sense what the question is hitting at, but I think there might be two unspoken defintions: revenge and self-defense.

I do not consider it revenge to use force after the fact if that force is needed to make the person being harmed whole. A private protection agency using tear gas in the home of an armed robber in the attempt to reclaim stolen goods would not be revenge in my eyes. However, breaking the guys kneecaps the next weekend because he's an asshat and you're angry WOULD be revenge.

Quote from: 'JB'
IMO You only have the right to take someone's life if they threatened to take the life of yours or your family's.

My basis for the ownership of property is the act of eating (eating, which is a human requirement deprives other people of the ability to eat that thing. This establishes that ownership it natural, needed and ethical. My viewpoint also extends to more "complex" forms of property, but that's the basis of it). When I say "life, liberty and property" I'm not speaking of three unique things, but three aspects of the same thing. With that understanding, I believe in absolute ownership of property and support that through homesteading all non-data things may be owned. I do, very much, consider tresspass of any sort to be an assault on life. I wouldn't go blasting away people for stepping foot on my property, but in the very barest sense, I do believe that someone doing that would be disgusting BUT acting ethically according to the non-aggression principal.

Revenge is immoral. There was not a "No" option, and if supporting moral action makes me a pussy, I'll take the author's implied insult. :)

The Polling Pit / Re: How much are you "on board" with the show?
« on: August 29, 2008, 05:50:22 PM »
I consider myself a voluntaryist and agorist. I agree with Ian's about 99% of the time, though I believe that some of the ideas he (and Tannehill) tossed out about the justice system would be dramatically different. I also disagree with Ian on the "non-cooperation" thing in two regards. Firstly, I see "belief in government" as a social issue. It is raising awareness and discrediting this belief that will lead to liberty. The purpose of civil disobedience and non-cooperation is to raise that awareness. On the other ends of that, I believe that the political world can reach people and help correct the belief in government social issue. Neither is a means to an end in and of themselves. Secondly, I think that Ian gives lip service to "market based activism" but really does very little support of true market based activism. Agorism is about establishing alternate outlets for government influenced, regulated and prohibited goods and I think this is key to establishing a sustainable, liberty-centric society. Civil disobedience is worlds away from "Market Activism".

The Polling Pit / Re: Pleasures
« on: August 28, 2008, 03:28:52 PM »
I'm torn between alcohol and music.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 143 queries.