Along a similar vein is "Alone in Berlin" While not a dramatic a film, the parallel of sand in a machine is intriguing. His notes weren't going to change the course of the war, or the country. What seems inverted is Otto thought that he is introducing the sand into the machinery of the state. Conversely, it is the ideas that put America in process that is akin to the oil or lubrication conducive to fine running machine. The Hitlers, and statist and other authoritarians take the machines being held together by chicken-wire and bubble gum, and contaminate the lubricant beyond what any filters that may be in place can effectively screen out. This is not a recommendation to see the film, just a few thoughts generated after having watched it recently.
Thought about your post after seeing this headline. The trolling and circumvention of conventional gatekeepers is an intriguing angle to wrap around this knuckle-dragging neanderthal. The Shooter's Manifesto Was Designed to Troll by Taylor Lorenz for The Atlantic.
<excerpt from part 1> As a physics PhD who formerly worked in gravitational physics, my goal in this article is to guide you — in non-technical terms — toward an appreciation of the science of gravitational waves: What they are, how they were discovered, and why it's so valuable that we can now detect them. While not just a philosophic breakdown, this paragraph shoehorned in nicely with this article written for Aeon recently, advocating breaking philosophy down into non-technical terms for the general lay-person. Speak to the Shoemaker.
Nice instructive piece featured on Aeon by Edith Hall, who is is professor in the department of classics and Centre for Hellenic Studies at King's College London.
The only thing missing is a frame superposing a milk carton around the image: Impressive computer image rendering.
Ran across another article on Real Clear Science that was reminiscent of this earlier posting: The Silver Fox Experiment Still Shapes Thinking on Evolution Apparently the referenced experiment is still ongoing: Some 60 years later, his experiment is still going. It is one of the longest running science experiments ever, having outlived even its creator. And after all this time, it is still shaping the way we think about fundamental questions in biology — and even influencing the way we understand our own evolutionary trajectory.
Here's a more explicit statement from About Ayn Rand under the Resources heading: Legacy Library We've worked to reassemble Ayn Rand's personal library as it was at the time of her death. Curious about what titles she'd read or owned? You can take a look here. View her Library > Granted . . . it is still the internet.
Finished reading "Leave Her to Heaven", written by Ben Ames Williams in 1944.
Saw the book for the first time in a "Little Free Library" box while visiting Curwood Castle (built by another popular author of the early 1900's), and the title reminded me of a line from For The New Intellectual's lead article ". . . leave them to heaven."
First off, how was it discovered by those who accept the notion? Secondly, how would its veracity be independently verified by our conscious mind. Thirdly, how might a conclusion that a conscious mind is not capable of verifying such data escape the paradox that it is making a claim of knowledge? This smells like leftover determinism repackaged to masquerade as a scientific banquet.
There is the Wayback Machine. Apart from that, if it was not bequeathed in a will, or allocated into an estate plan, then where other copies may be harbored would be difficult, indeed, to reclaim.
Life has a new ingredient Inosine could be a potential route to the first RNA and the origin of life on Earth Date: December 3, 2018 Source: Harvard University Summary: Our prehistoric Earth, bombarded with asteroids and lightening, rife with bubbling geothermal pools, may not seem hospitable today. But somewhere in the chemical chaos of our early planet, life did form. How? For decades, scientists have created miniature replicas of infant Earth in the lab in order to hunt for life's essential ingredients. Now, one of those replicas points to a possible new ingredient in the world's first RNA. First, some new versions discovered to test. Recently, however, researchers discovered a way to make versions of adenosine and inosine -- 8-oxo-adenosine and 8-oxo-inosine -- from materials available on primeval Earth. So, Kim and his colleagues set out to investigate whether RNA constructed with these analogs could replicate efficiently. And while these substitutes failed to perform, the crux per this excerpt is: nosine enabled RNA [replicated] with high speed and few errors. It "turns out to exhibit reasonable rates and fidelities in RNA copying reactions," the team concluded. "We propose that inosine could have served as a surrogate for guanosine in the early emergence of life."
Back in other news . . . Russia fires at Ukrainian ships and captures three vessels off Crimea Ukraine says Russia opened fire on its naval vessels, seized them From the second link: The international community has largely not recognized Russia's annexation of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea from Ukraine. According to TASS, a 2003 treaty confirms the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait as domestic waters of Russia and Ukraine.
Lawrence M. Krauss did this 5619 word expose on the Star Trek transporter back in 1995: Beam Me Up an Einstein, Scotty Not that he provides the last word on the subject, he does reveal that the onion has many layers to it, and presents them from several perspectives derived from several of the fictional explanations provided. Here's an excerpt from where he gets as close to discussing the consciousness issue: When a body has no body Perhaps the most fascinating question about beaming - one that is usually not even addressed - is, What comprises a human being? Are we merely the sum of all our atoms? More precisely, if I were to re-create each atom in your body, in precisely the same chemical state of excitation as your atoms are in at this moment, would I produce a functionally identical person who has exactly all your memories, hopes, dreams, spirit? There is every reason to expect that this would be the case, but it is worth noting that it flies in the face of a great deal of spiritual belief about the existence of a "soul" that is somehow distinct from one's body. What happens when you die, after all? Don't many religions hold that the "soul" can exist after death? What then happens to the soul during the transport process? In this sense, the transporter would be a wonderful experiment in spirituality. If a person were beamed aboard the Enterprise and remained intact and observably unchanged, it would provide dramatic evidence that a human being is no more than the sum of his or her parts, and the demonstration would directly confront a wealth of spiritual beliefs.
What is difficult to place into this framework is the transporter brushing with death in order to accomplish the goal. Is the transporter severing matter and form, substance and structure? If so, how? Recollections of watching Star Trek episodes, the person at the controls moved a lever, and at one time, there was like a cylinder of what appeared to be television static, the camera would switch to the destination, and the static would resolve into Kirk or Spock, and the show would continue. Everything else is conjecture in the individual minds of what they imagine "must have happened". Until a working model of a transporter is built, God formed woman from Adam's rib is about as informative as God spake and firmaments appeared between the waters. Google query on "how does a star trek transporter work": A transporter is a fictional teleportation machine used in the Star Trek universe. Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization).
Rod Sterling would have been hard pressed to put it any better. Someone wrote on a travel method where the traveler was put to sleep prior to the journey. A child figured a way to remain awake for the trip, and at the destination, was arrived as an old version of the child. (The child with make-up to look like wrinkles and gray hair.) All that needs be interjected now is Derek Parfit's version, albeit, it transforms the question from one of teleportation to replication.
So a note to whomever discovers and ultimately constructs a Star Trek style transporter, like a pack of cigarettes, it must come with a clearly marked warning label to the effect of: Use of this product invokes a Frankenstein Clause. You will die before the process is complete, and the entity resurrected at the completion of the process may, or may not, provide you with the salvation of the time traveled you may otherwise have incurred. I believe the other thread also stated that the person who used a transporter should not be treated any differently afterward, leaving open the question: If a person refuses to use a transporter even before they are created, should they be treated differently?
No, I seem to be grasping at straws here for the moment. I'll have to be content with having explicitly revealed the error at this time.
The "first person perspective/experience" has an identity. Yours has an identity, mine has an identity, and 7.4 billion other residents of this inhabited world have each their own "first person perspective/experience" along with its respective identity. Each of these units are part of the set of "first person perspective/experience", including those which were, those which are, and those which have yet to be. As units of this unique identity, there has to be a range of measurements which have been omitted, which must exist in some quantity, but may exist with any quantity (within their respective range limits.) At this point, what is being dealt with is similarity, not a state of being identical. Identity, as described, is not a state of being identical, rather it is where the spectrum of identified and yet to be identified similarities reside. Again, it seems as if the riddle rests on different perspectives of a particular. Two different perspectives of, in this case, "first person perspective/experience".
Agreed, it isn't clear yet. I'm struggling with this. There is something about the "first person experience" that is universal, or independently shareable—via communication—yet dependent on the one experiencing it.
A proper expression of the following: could be reworded as: 1. Everything existing in reality exists independent of every person's perception, knowledge, consciousness, experience etc. The "first person experience" is separate enough to be identified as the "first person experience", dependent on the first person to experience, and can be projected such that it can be understood that other's must have that "first person experience" as well.
If the "first person experience" is dependent on yourself to experience it, how is it independent of the "first person's perception"?