Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Only if you want it to be. But I've got Bendon covered....
-
That's just bollocks, quite frankly. The Internet wasn't set up by alien invaders, it was done by people and governments and telecommunications companies and such like. It can be regulated, opened up, shut down, depending on political will.
Don't be too proud of this human terror you've created. The power of governments to destroy a planet are insignificant next to the power of the net.
-
I don't know enough yet to apply labels to my own leanings or understandings. Maybe I'll get there eventually..
It's better to just describe them, and let the semantics fall where they may. A word is just name for an idea, you could call your position "Sachaism" and be totally safe.
-
But if I ever start to look like Julie Myerson, please, somebody send me a very, very stern email and tell me to stop. Should that fail, I guess you'll just have to shoot me.
Tough question I guess. So long as your family are consenting, there's little harm in it, and maybe a lot of good. Most of us are very interested in your experiences in a way that is not voyeuristic. They are usually presented packed full of useful information. That Leo is in some measure following your footsteps is a very sincere form of flattery and consent, I think. Tell him that "blunt screamers" is my phrase of the week, btw.
Personally, I'm not so brave. If I speak of personal experiences, I tend to leave names out. Some of the best points that I know I could make, I don't actually want to make on account of protecting the people involved. Not that any of it is really news, I just respect their privacy. And I never wanted to talk in detail publicly about the hell I went through at the birth of my son. I found talking about other things on PA very, very therapeutic at the time. If I wanted to yell at anyone, I went over to Kiwiblog. That snapped me out of it quick enough.
-
I'm as Atheist as I am Evolutionist. Which is: Leaning towards, but totally aware of the possibility of being totally wrong. I'm not sure if that's technically Agnostic, and these days, I really don't care.
-
Thats because the Theory of Evolution's explanatory power is still in its infancy in this regard, when it comes to the more complex workings of the mind.
Or it could be completely inadequate for the task. It's a possibility. If you really have a scientific mind then you have to countenance it.
Evolutionism vs Creationism strikes me as in many ways parallel to the Theism vs Atheism divide. In many ways the same motivations can drive people to opposite views, and they find it very hard to realize how similar that they have become to what they consider mortal enemies. Just as Theists seem to think they have all the answers, I've noticed Atheists do too. To take a strong position on the non-existence of God is to give a lot more of a shit about God than agnostics do. To wish to explain all of creation on terms that humans can handle is something that both Evolutionists and Creationists share. It can be hard sometimes to accept that both are just theories, one is just older and more discredited than the other.
-
Even so, why some feelings and not others?
I guess the more simply functional the feeling, the easier it is to ascribe biological reasons. Hunger is something you usually feel right in your gut, and eating gets rid of it, so you can put it down to biology (although I have to say, I think a lot of the time when I'm hungry, it's actually in my mind). But subtler emotions, like love, can present themselves less physically, so you might be inclined to think of them as part of the magical mind.
Even the physical location of the mind is something that opinions varied on in the past. Many ancient peoples thought that their various thoughts were contained in different parts of the body. The heart was a popular choice.
Remember that the most beautiful things in the world are the most useless, peacocks and lilies for instance.
I personally think it's a mistake to think the Utilitarians had no time for beauty. So far as I can tell, they would have considered the beauty itself to be utility. If something that was beautiful brought happiness to people, then it was a very valuable thing. But it is certainly not the only valuable thing to Utilitarians.
Evolutionary psychology may be useful in constructing a theory of how we got there, but it doesn't really understand us in the here and now, I feel - and similarly thinking in terms of chemical reaction is unhelpful.
I totally agree. Evolution generally has excellent explanatory power for a lot of things but people tend to forget that:
1. Evolution is not just genetics. Many systems evolve, including society and ideas. And they evolve far, far faster.
2. Evolution totally ignores a great many things, if they have no influence on survival. Some things are just that way by chance.
3. Evolution is sometimes (but not always) aided by diversity, so having a large number of things which are very far from the median, actually helps the species at times. So you shouldn't always look towards the trends.To that end, I think that the study of evolution can be very weak at shedding light on human behavior, and mental states.
-
"fair value" ? There is only market value
That's one of the biggest questions in economics. Some people believe in true underlying value (which might not be the same idea as 'fair' value), around which the market will fluctuate. Others discard that idea. I can see reasons for both points of view. Believing in only market values is somewhat solipsistic. But fundamental values are always in dispute, there is no clear way to measure them.
-
No, you get to stop them making copies of your product, but they can still make the same "kind"of goods - you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea.
Yup, right, they can't make the exact same thing. Depending which part of IP you're talking about, there are rules about how much they can copy it. You're monopolizing your particular good.
Aha! and the Internet allows the struggling artist to control the means of production!!
Heh, I was thinking the opposite, the artist already owns that (to whatever degree they can swing with the publisher), but the internet could actually seize the means of production right back to the consumer.
-
Nope, that's a great new angle - please keep going.
You can take it where you like - I haven't thought much further than that. Despite having constructed an analogy, I don't see it leading to any conclusions about whether these special monopolistic factories are actually bad for society, and should have those exclusive rights taken away. Like I said, our other concepts of value tie to goods and services, whether you like fair value or market value. Analogy is a very weak argumentation method (despite sometimes being all we really have).
If you take them away then the act of creation becomes a performance art. It's like busking - people could either pay whatever they felt like, keeping in mind that if they don't pay then the busker may stop doing what they're doing, or the busker can be paid beforehand to play a chosen song (but only one pay per song). It's hard to imagine this generating anywhere near the profits that can be generated by owning the song itself, and getting a cut from any performance or copy. But would it lead to better or worse performances? I don't know. I'm pretty sure it would lead to more performances.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 876 877 878 879 880 … 1066 Older→ First