|
Or, to put it another way, "It is vitally necessary for me to talk loudly and publicly about my masturbation fantasies, and be protected from all social criticism when I do so".
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
I think there's something sort of nice about a scientist going outside of his field of expertise and spouting harmless hippie bullshit. Usually when they go outside their field you wind up with assholes like Dawkins or Watson.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:They've got a whole thing about this called noticing skulls. Basically the argument is that they're smart enough to notice the skulls and that the skulls are their for lesser intellects, but as luminaries of the mind they'll be okay. The fact that none of them can function in society as it is and have to hide in a group of like-minded individuals ought to be a warning but is instead taken as proof that they're as deviated from the norms as they think they are. Not one of these people thinks they're on the left end of any bell curves. Wait, does the "noticing skulls" thing come from Eliot's line about John Webster? Because Webster wrote an entire play about how people who think they're pure-minded luminaries are actually evil pieces of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
I thought they were missing the point of a pretentious intellectual, and instead they're missing the point of a comedy show on Channel 4. Nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:In *theory*, if you do it right the crystals are small enough that while the cell it's in is super-dead there's enough left to calculate its original state and connections, allowing you to use Clarke's Law tech to build a new brain indistinguishable from the old. I'm not a biologist, but does the "state" of the neurons even contain useful information? It seems like most of the signal in the system would be stored in the neurotransmitters moving across the synapses, not within the actual neurons. Even if they're wacky enough to think of the brain as a turing machine, it would be like trying to restore the algorithm running on a scrapped turing machine after you'd lost the paper tape.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
Hypothetical: assume Big Yud is correct, and his continued existence will spawn an entire subrace of tortured abominations who know nothing but pain. Quantify the amount of pain that each of these wretched souls feels, and multiply it by the number of individuals in that race who currently exist or will ever come into being. Assume that product is greater than the quantified amount of pleasure that Yud will feel in the rest of his life. In such a scenario, wouldn't the rational response be for Yud to kill himself, thus reducing the total amount of human suffering in the world?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2018 01:19
|
|