TetrisGod

Members
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TetrisGod

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/16/1985

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Location Pennsylvania
  1. Penn & Teller - Bullsh*t

    I love this show. For most episodes I can't really find any 'emotions-as-arguements' since they're pretty good about facts. The only episode that I've ever seen where they just seem to state their opinion is in the Death Penalty episode. In that episode, their whole arguement seems to be that its not good to kill a human being. While I don't necessarily object they don't defend that idea with any reason, they just keep showing Teller being strung up. I think the reason for this is that 'is killing humans bad?' is necessarily an ethical/philosophical question, and the show is not philosophical so they couldn't answer with anything more than an image. But other than that complaint, its a 10
  2. Niptuck

    The FX Show that currently has me addicted :-) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361217/
  3. Gas Prices

    I didn't mean that we shouldn't think long term, but only that to some of us the gas prices hurt our standard of living quite a bit. Do I think i'll be better off in ten years? Of course, but thats not going to stop me complaining about paying almost twice for gas now then last year. My statement wasn't meant to deride principled thinking, only to mean that while planning for your life, you also have to make sure you don't starve today.
  4. Gas Prices

    I drive about 700 miles a week. Luckily, I also drive a honda civic which gets 35 miles to the gallon. Even so, the increase in gas prices cost me about 25 dollars a week...and if it stays this high or gets higher, thats about 1200 dollars for gas EXTRA over the next year. Being a relatively poor college student, I can't help but get upset when I see a "concrete-bound" knife inserted into my wallet. Its hard to think long term when you have to struggle to live in the now.
  5. Witticisms

    It is from "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life". *silly walks his way out of the forum*
  6. Terrorists have attacked London

    But wouldn't killing a lot of people cause greater disruption?
  7. Teleportation?

    On the basis that if you can recreate your body and have a consciousness attached without destroying your original body/consciousness then that new consciouness is not your own. The new consciousness may think it is merely a continuation, but that wouldn't change the fact you still exist. Even if you destroyed yourself at the instant the new copy was made then it wouldn't make a difference; except the new copy wouldn't know that it was a copy and could presumably fool everyone else. The only tricky thing I can see is if you HAD to destroy your original self for the teleportation to work (like in Star Trek where you can't just teleport a copy of yourself to the next location). But this idea makes me think that the mind is only connected to the body in a superficial way ... in that it just has to find a "body shape" that it fits to and it can go to that. An example (under the premise that you had to destroy the original copy) being: You step into the teleporter and don't destroy yourself ... and what happens is either the copy or the original fall to the ground unconscious while the other is able to live. Such an experiment would lead me to conclude that the body walking around is the 'original' person.
  8. Teleportation?

    I'm sorry, what I meant wasn't that anyone suggested there was a free-floating consciousness that gets transferred. What I meant was that the idea of recreating the shape/matter of our brains would recreate the same consciousness(or any consciousness) a form of reducing the mind to the brain. The way I think of it is there are two possibilities: 1) You go into the teleportation machine, and at the other end a copy of you comes out ... except it falls to the floor because there's no "self" in it. It is merely a corpse. 2) You step into the machine and since its a teleportation machine that instantly sends you to the other side (i.e. you are both in New York and Sydney) your self is in two places at once. Obviously #2 leads to a contradiction (you can't be here and there at the same time in the same respect) so that can't be possible. There would have to be some time interval between the tranfer for it to be physically possible. So the question comes down to, can you completely destroy your body, then recreate it and have the same self appear. Even if recreating your body did create another consciousness; I don't think that it proves that it is yours. Because if that were true then I could get scanned or whatnot then have 10 "me's" recreated and I think its safe to say that none of them would contain my personal self. If I had them all recreated in the same room at the same time, they may think they have mysteriously "warped" to that spot ... but then they would also be looking out and seeing the other 9 people staring back and them. Now what if I only created one in a separate room by itself...it may think that it had just warped there and that it contained my self. But as you can see, I'd still be alive and I would still have my own consciousness so the idea that there is an exactly identical one in the next room wouldn't matter. This is why I think that your mind is most certaintly fixed in your own body. The idea that you can recreate the body and have a consciousness appear seems a little materialistic ...but there's nothing I can see that is metaphysically impossible (at least until we find out more about the nature of consciousness and the nature of reality for that matter) and I just lean towards it not being possible. Only an experiment of that kind would prove if it were possible or not.
  9. Teleportation?

    I think I'll wait until this convo has been decided one way or the other first thank-you Seriously though, I think the whole idea of transporting your consciousness from one place to another (i.e. ripping it out of your body and getting it to some other place somehow) gives in to the whole mind/body dichotomy by giving the impression that you can remove your consciousness from your own body and that the two aren't really connected. The whole idea gives me the image of a crazy scientists hooking up to a dog's head and a human's head a couple of helmets; then flicking the switch and suddenly having the human bark and walk on all fours and the dog talk
  10. Google Earth

    I'm simply addicted to this program...I've been looking up all sorts of landmarks and cities since I saw this post. Everyone should definitely give this a look
  11. Star Wars: Episode III- Revenge of the Sith (2005)

    Of course it did, thats the whole idea of "the force". The jedi don't gain knowledge of the force through reason, they gain it by their mystical powers and just 'feeling' it. If you're going to get any enjoyment out of the Star Wars saga you will have to accept that and see it as part of the Star Wars reality.
  12. Meyers-Briggs used in career counseling

    But being an introvert I'm afraid to I agree though, these kind of tests are at best gross generalizations. I would never try to use them for anything meaningful or important.
  13. You Be the Jury #1

    I'd have to vote Not Guilty on this one. I don't think you could morally judge Watson's actions because he was forced. (Assuming he HAD to kill the officer) The situation was either kill or be killed which is exactly like if a robber pointed a gun at you and told you to kill your neighbor or be killed; whatever action you take it is outside the realm of ethics. Now as a side question to clarify: Can you objectively make laws that punish an action that is outside the realm of morality? Obviously all things that are immoral shouldn't be criminal (drugs) and things that ARE moral shouldn't be, but what about amoral actions? If this is outside the topic then ignore the question and I'll ask it again later in a more appropriate section.
  14. I think girlfriend/boyfriend are good for children and young teenagers since boys and girls usually stay in the same gender group. So having a "boyfriend" or a "girlfriend" does imply some relationship (although hopefully not romantic as of then). I can't think any other worthwhile names though. Of course if the relationship kept going hopefully the names would change to fiance or wife...but as of right now I think I'll stick with girlfriend
  15. Three Cheers for "Cockney barrow boy spivs"!

    The article can be found in Return of the Primitive and its called The Cashing-In: The Student "Rebellion" The people who gave in to the students demands got the worst of the protests directed at them.