|
"Here I am, snorting coke off Nick Land's rear end." #thetriggering
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 13:15 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 16:43 |
|
divabot posted:Just updated the RW cryonics article with the Kim Suozzi stuff. HOLY poo poo. Alcor's tried to litigate away the serious allegations concerning their slapstick incompetence at the one loving thing they claim to be able to do before, but this one condemns them out of their own mouths. Myers is the only public atheist with any kind of profile that I can think of who's not a raging libertarian rear end in a top hat, so he's got that going for him.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 13:48 |
|
Pope Guilty posted:Myers is the only public atheist with any kind of profile that I can think of who's not a raging libertarian rear end in a top hat
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 14:14 |
|
Cingulate posted:Then you have an extremely idiosyncratic view on public atheism, as the New Atheists, to begin with, are, almost to a man, no libertarians. I'm tired and meant "racist".
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 14:16 |
|
..... yeah. This is where I could finally provide that long-demanded diversion from the thanatophobia discussion! Double Edit: removed another counter example b/c this particular derail would have been too stupid for even me. Cingulate has a new favorite as of 14:24 on Mar 10, 2016 |
# ? Mar 10, 2016 14:20 |
|
divabot posted:Just updated the RW cryonics article with the Kim Suozzi stuff. HOLY poo poo. Alcor's tried to litigate away the serious allegations concerning their slapstick incompetence at the one loving thing they claim to be able to do before, but this one condemns them out of their own mouths. What's wrong with PZ Myers? Usually people who bitch about him are the very same people who we mock in this thread, whining about how PZ Myers is mean to us .
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 15:35 |
|
Cingulate posted:In a way, all cryogenics does is allow the Basilisk to not only torture a copy of you (who cares), but actually you. Extropians I Have Known would say that any magic future society with the ability to revive people would see this as a distinction without a difference, which would make some kind of software the likeliest successful output of cryonics, because it would be easier to make (and coincidentally easier to paper over the holes in the idea in conversation).
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 15:43 |
|
Doc Hawkins posted:[these people] ... see this as a distinction without a difference
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 15:48 |
|
Cingulate posted:Then you have an extremely idiosyncratic view on public atheism, as the New Atheists, to begin with, are, almost to a man, no libertarians.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 15:58 |
|
Woolie Wool posted:What's wrong with PZ Myers? Usually people who bitch about him are the very same people who we mock in this thread, whining about how PZ Myers is mean to us . Wikipedia posted:On July 24, 2008, Myers, in his post, "The Great Desecration," wrote that he had pierced through the "goddamned cracker" with a rusty nail, which he also used to pierce a few ripped-out pages of the Qur'an (in English translation, not the original Arabic) and The God Delusion, and had simply thrown them all in the trash along with old coffee grounds and a banana peel. He provided a photograph of these items in the garbage, and wrote that nothing must be held sacred, encouraging people to question everything. ~so edgy~ He's not factually wrong most of the time, just smug. The exception is his Jesus mythicism: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/21/carrier-cold-cocks-ehrman/
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 16:12 |
|
neonnoodle posted:Michael Shermer and Penn Jillette come to mind. Penn's not really a "new atheist" but he is a very vocal one with a fan following. If the first people coming to mind when you speak of prominent, outspoken atheism are libertarians, that says much about you, and next to nothing about contemporary popular atheism.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 16:30 |
|
Cingulate posted:The New Atheism figureheads are (were) Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris and despicable clueless waste of soma Daniel Dennett, neither of which even borders on the libertarian. Jilette is A Not Completely Unknown Guy Who Happens To Be Atheist, not A Famous Atheist, and Michael Shermer is just a few orders of magnitude less popular than Harris or Dawkins. Note the "were." Hitchens is dead, and nobody seems to care much about Harris and Dennett anymore.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 16:34 |
|
Silver2195 posted:Note the "were." Hitchens is dead, and nobody seems to care much about Harris and Dennett anymore. By Google Trends, interest in Harris is rising, that in Dawkins falling; Harris is currently surpassing Dawkins. Harris, Dawkins and dead Hitchens are, each individually, muuuuuuuuch more popular in book sales and Google Trends than Jilette or Shermer.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 16:36 |
|
Y'all keep spelling Dick Dorkins wrong
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 16:45 |
|
Cingulate posted:The New Atheism figureheads are (were) Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris and despicable clueless waste of soma Daniel Dennett, neither of which even borders on the libertarian. Jilette is A Not Completely Unknown Guy Who Happens To Be Atheist, not A Famous Atheist, and Michael Shermer is just a few orders of magnitude less popular than Harris or Dawkins. What's with Dennett being despicable? You're the first person I've seen to actually dislike him rather than just find him boring / pointless or not knowing who he is.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:01 |
|
Reflections85 posted:What's with Dennett being despicable? You're the first person I've seen to actually dislike him rather than just find him boring / pointless or not knowing who he is. Do not engage with Cingulate, do not engage with Count Chocula when he's thanatophobing. Do that, and this thread becomes an order of magnitude more readable. Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UyPV2Fj4lk
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:06 |
|
Count Chocula posted:"Sleep, that little cousin of death. How I loathe it!" - Edgar Allan Poe I hear copious amounts of speed works pretty well for a while
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:09 |
|
Reflections85 posted:What's with Dennett being despicable? You're the first person I've seen to actually dislike him rather than just find him boring / pointless or not knowing who he is. 2. he's selling himself as a cognitive scientists when he has no insight into the field, no contributions, and no understanding 3. I just generally dislike (freedom-of-will) compatibilists of the Dennett/Searle/Chomsky tradition 4. fat 5. annoying voice 6. fat
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:30 |
|
MikeCrotch posted:I hear copious amounts of speed works pretty well for a while
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:32 |
|
Cingulate posted:Science fact: nobody knows what sleep is good for, to the extent that we can't even exclude that you could do completely without. It makes you not tired.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:44 |
|
Cingulate posted:Science fact: nobody knows what sleep is good for, to the extent that we can't even exclude that you could do completely without. It's been proven that you suck a lot at everything on sleep deprivation, and you die after a long enough time.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:47 |
|
Cingulate posted:1. he's incredibly smug about banal or wrong stuff. Like, have you ever seen him admit surprisal, or showing astonishment or wonder? And yet, he sells himself as being science aligned. okay deary
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:49 |
|
Cingulate posted:4. fat 4. Is a shithead 5. Writes annoying posts 6. Is a shithead
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:54 |
|
The sketchiest thing I can say about Dennet is that he's friendly with Stephen Pinker and Napoleon Chagnon, but in contrast to the other Horsemen he seems to pointedly abstain from either deriding believers or drawing goofy and/or repulsive political conclusions from the death of God. I can imagine someone being an incompatiblist, but compatibility does seem to be a strange thing to call someone out for specifically when it's the consensus position among analytics - or is there something about the Chomsky/Searle "tradition" (first I've heard of it, but I'm a nonspecialist) that's particularly irksome.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 17:59 |
|
Oligopsony posted:The sketchiest thing I can say about Dennet is that he's friendly with Stephen Pinker and Napoleon Chagnon, but in contrast to the other Horsemen he seems to pointedly abstain from either deriding believers or drawing goofy and/or repulsive political conclusions from the death of God. I can imagine someone being an incompatiblist, but compatibility does seem to be a strange thing to call someone out for specifically when it's the consensus position among analytics - or is there something about the Chomsky/Searle "tradition" (first I've heard of it, but I'm a nonspecialist) that's particularly irksome. Cingulate
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 18:13 |
|
Dennett is smart and nice, a teacher of students who wants them to do well and cares about them. Also spends zero seconds a day arguing on the internet as far as I can tell.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 18:53 |
|
Puppy Time posted:It's been proven that you suck a lot at everything on sleep deprivation, and you die after a long enough time. Lab rats die after sleep deprivation, but if you read the sleep deprivation literature, you'll find that 1. the technique to keep rats awake is super cruel: you basically force them to stay awake or drown, 2. the community accepts that this research says just as much about the function of sleep as what saying "food is necessary because if you don't eat, you die, and if you eat, you stop being hungry" tells you about food physiology, calories, protein metabolism and the Krebs cycle. Consider muscle fatigue or hunger. Muscles are damaged by prolonged stress (the fibers literally tear), and their ATP runs out. But the brain blocks muscle activity long before traumatic damage occurs (although after the first tears occur), and long before ATP is truly depleted. That is, you'll be unable to exert any more effort, but this is due to your brain no longer sending the signals; if I were to manually activate your muscle, it would still be physiologically capable of contraction. Similarly, the primary function of eating is to acquire calories and other nutrients, but you get hungry long before you starve to death. And with the supposed need for sleep, we observe something correlating to hunger and exertion - tiredness; but we do not know of the correlate of muscle damage/ATP depletion or starvation. Plenty of theories, but nothing conclusive and accepted. DStecks posted:It makes you not tired. Jack Gladney posted:Dennett is smart and nice, a teacher of students who wants them to do well and cares about them. Also spends zero seconds a day arguing on the internet as far as I can tell. Dennett probably spends more time arguing on the internet than I do; that you don't know that shows you have at most passing familiarity with the man. (In contrast to me, he's doing something for his career there though.) Oligopsony posted:The sketchiest thing I can say about Dennet is that he's friendly with Stephen Pinker and Napoleon Chagnon, but in contrast to the other Horsemen he seems to pointedly abstain from either deriding believers or drawing goofy and/or repulsive political conclusions from the death of God. I can imagine someone being an incompatiblist, but compatibility does seem to be a strange thing to call someone out for specifically when it's the consensus position among analytics - or is there something about the Chomsky/Searle "tradition" (first I've heard of it, but I'm a nonspecialist) that's particularly irksome. What particularly irks me, however, about Chomsky/Searle/Dennett style cognitive science/philosophy of mind is actually substantive, however. They're all staunch cognitivists (viewing mental work as largely akin to the symbol manipulation a Turing machine does), and, the flip side of that, they think they're either part of, or have transcended, actual cognitive neuroscience. Basically, I hate inappropriate confidence by amateurs (cf. my custom title ). Edit: oh, I guess my criticism of him is at least better than "he has friends with political opinions I disagree with". I'm talking about his actual ideas. And the gut and voice, of course.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 19:09 |
|
Cingulate posted:That one may be somewhat of an urban myth insofar as this has not been scientifically established to occur in humans as far as I know Right, fatal familial insomnia destroys your ability to sleep, and then you inevitably die later from completely unrelated circumstances
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 19:25 |
|
Scratch-O posted:Right, fatal familial insomnia destroys your ability to sleep, and then you inevitably die later from completely unrelated circumstances Freddy pulls you into a hole in your bed and blood flies out, or you get stabbed in the stomach and dragged across the ceiling.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 19:32 |
|
Cingulate posted:That one may be somewhat of an urban myth insofar as this has not been scientifically established to occur in humans as far as I know, and the animal research is not trivially generalizable. No, you have to sleep, period. Your body is very good at forcing you to sleep at some point, but if you literally cannot sleep, poo poo goes south pretty quickly. Fatal Familial Insomnia is a pretty good show and tell of how your organs will stop functioning given long enough without sleep, but in these instances, one poor bastard went for almost a solid year without sleep. quote:Consider muscle fatigue or hunger. Muscles are damaged by prolonged stress (the fibers literally tear), and their ATP runs out. But the brain blocks muscle activity long before traumatic damage occurs (although after the first tears occur), and long before ATP is truly depleted. This is wrong. You can literally destroy your own muscles through sheer willpower if you work out too hard, too long, or the wrong way, and your kidneys will give out before your brain will start screaming "oh god please stop".
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 19:54 |
|
Cingulate posted:In a way, all cryogenics does is allow the Basilisk to not only torture a copy of you (who cares), but actually you. My years of Dungeons and Dragons expertise has given me the utmost confidence that I could fight a basilisk. Just don't look it in the eye and engage it at range. The thing is only CR5, why are we supposed to be afraid of it, again? I am not actually asking you to explain why it should be feared, calm your tits, Cingulate
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 20:05 |
|
A White Guy posted:No, you have to sleep, period. Your body is very good at forcing you to sleep at some point, but if you literally cannot sleep, poo poo goes south pretty quickly. Fatal Familial Insomnia is a pretty good show and tell of how your organs will stop functioning given long enough without sleep, but in these instances, one poor bastard went for almost a solid year without sleep. Similarly, we sleep because we are tired, and we get tired because we must sleep, but nobody actually knows what sleep is for.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 20:08 |
|
"Nobody actually knows what sleep is for" -Cingulate, allegedly a teacher, 2016
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 20:26 |
|
Scratch-O posted:Right, fatal familial insomnia destroys your ability to sleep, and then you inevitably die later from completely unrelated circumstances Schenkein & Montagna 2006 posted:Despite its suggestive name, the insomnia of FFI may not be an early or essential symptom of the disorder. Among a series of German patients, sleep disturbances were mild and often recognized only in retrospect after detailed questioning of the family or reinvestigation of the hospital records.[...] Similar observations have been reported in other international populations. [...] Scratch-O posted:"Nobody actually knows what sleep is for" -Cingulate, allegedly a teacher, 2016
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 20:32 |
|
It's actually a bit scary how overconfident some of you guys are. To me, it seems what people like Scratch-O are doing here is a combination of: - understandable surprisal in the face of a counterintuitive claim (that science does not know why humans sleep) - slight confusion with related issues (do humans, generally speaking, need sleep?) - personal distaste for the person making the claim Maybe with #3 absent, a more, to use that ugly rationalist word, charitable reading would have occurred. Or am I missing something here about the psychology of the situation? Alas, it goes even deeper than science being not clear on why humans and other animals need sleep. It's not even completely, beyond doubt, clear if animals in principle need it, on a physiological level. Here's a really fascinating read from a top scientific journal that's all open access. It's a paper with the nice title "Is Sleep Essential?" quote:Everybody knows that sleep is important, yet the function of sleep seems like the mythological phoenix: “Che vi sia ciascun lo dice, dove sia nessun lo sa” (“that there is one they all say, where it may be no one knows,” Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Lorenzo da Ponte [1790], Cosě fan tutte). But what if the search for an essential function of sleep is misguided? What if sleep is not required but rather a kind of extreme indolence that animals indulge in when they have no more pressing needs, such as eating or reproducing? In many circumstances sleeping may be a less dangerous choice than roaming around, wasting energy and exposing oneself to predators. Also, if sleep is just one out of a repertoire of available behaviors that is useful without being essential, it is easier to explain why sleep duration varies so much across species [1–4]. This “null hypothesis” [5–7] would explain why nobody has yet identified a core function of sleep. But how strong is the evidence supporting it? And are there counterexamples?
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 20:52 |
|
From the same article:quote:The benefits of sleep are well documented in both humans and animals. In animal studies, total sleep deprivation resulted in death (within 4-6 days for puppies[15] and 2-4 weeks for rats[16]). Death is preceded by weight loss despite increased food intake, debilitation, a decline in thyroid hormone, elevated sympathetic activation, and poor resistance to infection.[17] Compared with yoked controls, glucose utilization decreases in the hypothalamus, thalamus, and limbic system. Hypocretin levels increase in the lateral hypothalamus[18] leading to wakefulness, stimulation of hypothalamic-pituitary axis, and sympathetic activation. A drop in body temperature 2-3 standard deviations below baseline is an irreversible harbinger of death.[17] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781306/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781276/ In conclusion, Cingulate is a bad poster. Thank you and goodnight. E: Hey Cingulate, here's a fascinating paper for you! *lowers a sheet of paper to hand it to u, but I'm flipping u off behind the paper with my other hand* Scratch-O has a new favorite as of 20:57 on Mar 10, 2016 |
# ? Mar 10, 2016 20:54 |
|
Scratch-O posted:From the same article Scratch-O posted:E: Hey Cingulate, here's a fascinating paper for you! *lowers a sheet of paper to hand it to u, but I'm flipping u off behind the paper with my other hand*
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 20:58 |
|
Cingulate posted:I think one of the reasons I'm so down on behavior like this is how much it seems to me like, essentially, bullying.
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 21:14 |
|
Cingulate posted:- personal distaste for the person making the claim Buy a new account and maybe try to be a better poster next time around?
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 21:19 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 16:43 |
|
I laugh at this post uncontrollably every time despite disagreeing with it
|
# ? Mar 10, 2016 21:51 |