Free Republic

Generally I am a hard SF guy, but dabble elsewhere.

I like Neal Stephenson's stuff, starting with "Snow Crash".

If you want to read a stunning book, try "The Sparrow" by Mary Doria Russell. Pretty grim reading sometimes but just incredible. Explores some of the religious implications of meeting extra-terrestials.

If you never have read the Hyperion series by Dan Simmons you should do so. Not hard SF, not fantasy, but fantastic story telling. You just cannot put it down.

Open to any other suggestions by anyone of new authors. I have about 400 paperback SF going back 35 years or so. All time favorites from my youth - "The Mercy Men" (I was really into ESP) and "The Humanoids" - still incredibly readable.

What a surprise! The Dems think that solution is to break the countries promise to the people that worked hard, saved, tried to take care of themselves and not depend on the government, and punish them for working hard all their lives to support themselves and their families by taking more from them and giving less.

I am shocked.

I knew since the age of 14 that SS was a pyramid scheme and a hidden form of welfare. My age group (48) is poised to be screwed the worst, but it still needs to be dismantled.

As a CU grad (engineering - not Pollution Politics) I continue to be embarrassed by the "Berkeley of the Rockies".

First, innuendos and unproven claims by an activist DA destroy the football program (check out the facts - NOTHING was proved against the football staff, no apology was made, and the lasting perception is that horrible things were done.

Next, a hyper-socialist named Churchill running an absurd excuse for a department claims that janitors working at the World Trade Center deserved what they got.

Finally, another productive department, Environmental Studies, produces a raving socialist that claims that she was fired - not because she was teaching sh!+ - but because she is a heroine whistle blower. I suspect that her class was well sought out because as long as you parroted her, you got an A! .

As a 3rd generation Coloradan, it appalls me that CU is defining how CO is seen. Of course, it's better than being from MA...

Know that this is for a GREAT cause and not in vain.

Bye! Oh, and please don't be sneaking back in for health care or elections...

Amen - I think we are on the same page.

This is great news. Perhaps we can start to turn the tide on the insidious practice of bilingualism. Teach them English first, and then teach them in English.

Now if we could just tighten up those borders...

I am a huge SF fan. Yes, the Ender's series got a bit tedious and I though a bit wimpy by the end. But Ender's Game was an INCREDIBLE book. And the next 2 were good as well.

Oh, and didn't you get just a bit weary of Heinlein's crotchety-old-man-who-is-smarter-than-everyone-else-and-who-all-the-women-love character?! Like everything after "Stranger in a Strange Land" ?

I appreciate that many of the Mexicans that are coming into America illegally (lets not just say "coming across the border") are not evil. But please do not pretend that the only risk to the US is terrorist sneaking in with the wave - although this is a huge issue.

Check me on these stats, but my understanding is that in areas like LA, more than 50% of the uninsured health care expenses are illegal Mexicans. And that they are responsible for more than 50% of violent crime. And for more than 50% of Social Services expenses. And that many/most who are on parole just skip back to Mexico and avoid prosecution. And let's not forget the costs of ill-conceived concepts like bilingual education. I feel that these costs far outweigh all the "great" advantages we get by allowing illegal Mexicans into this country.

I am not scared of a"cultural invasion". I am concerned about the financially parasitic nature of this relationship. I am all for creating better ways for Mexicans to enter this country LEGALLY. And for helping Mexico create a society that allows them to properly reward their working class.

I am strongly opposed to allowing the continuation of ILLEGAL entry into this country, and to the social financial support of these people..

Exit strategy?! Our big victory will be if a democratic Iraq invites us to have permanent military bases in their country. That will cool down military action in the region, and maybe let us start dealing with the Saudis more appropriately...

Another thanks from a grateful American.

Turkey is not our friend. Saudi is not our friend. Iran is not our friend. Sudan is not our friend...

The Middle East sits on top of the powder-keg of Muslim extremist expansionism and terrorism (oh, and on top of a heck of a lot of oil). This is a virulent dangerous movement and all free people should be very afraid.

THIS is the reason for the war in Iraq. Bush is trying to change geo-politics for the next 200 years - to create a democratic foothold right in the middle of the rat's nest, and help stem the wave of Muslim extremism and terror. In addition, it will put internal pressures on the other Muslim nations that will force them to spend more time looking inward instead of projecting outward.

We never needed WMDs.

I recently was helping my 13 year old with his Social Studies homework regarding the branches of the govt. I saw that his text book had a section on the controls of the executive branch. I flipped through and found a parallel section for the legislature. I was quite interested in how they would characterize the controls on the judicial branch.

Amazingly :) this section was missing for the judicial branch. Scary. Our education system at work.

Unfortunately the historical limitations (i.e. the jjudicial branch has no real enforcement mechanism) are no longer very pertinent in today's society. I fear that this could end up being the fatal flaw in our founding fathers beautiful concept of democracy.

"The concept that I am trying to convey is that an infinite-minded God doesn't have the ability to grant us "free will" because God would immediately be aware of the outcome to any manipulation to the system made by God. God could "stir the pot" and artificially change the internal state of the system, but it wouldn't change the fact that the outcome would still be predetermined. "

Sorry, very behind on this interesting thread. I very much agree - since an ealry teen I have seen this as a VERY big inconsistency.

The concept of an all knowing God, who has any hand at all in setting up intial conditions, leads almost directly to predestination. Even if God has no input on intial conditions, the very fact that God cam know the outcome implies predestination. This does not leave much room for free will.

Directly related: I further struggle with this - if God puts me in a situation, or allows a situation, where God sees that the ultimate outcome is my eternal damnation, I struggle to see this as an all loving God.

Interestingly, although I am not religous, I have conceived of a universe where God does NOT know all outcomes, but creates events that balance all factors, such that each of us is put in situations that gives us exactly the same "chance" at redemption. Of course this would imply costant balancing - by not knowing outcomes, and therefore not knowing how they would impact other events, this would be a full time job (and of course requires negation of a pretty sacred cow -all knowing).

Nope, don't see any conflicts yet. Anyway...

You have what I see as two seperate points mixed together a bit. So lets go.

I would agree that manipulating AND interpreting symbols (be they language, math, or something that only lives within my brain) are both thought. I see interpreting as: taking in new input, converting them into internal symbols, making a comparison between these new symbols and those I have already developed (based on hard-wiring, upbringing, etc.), trying to create analogies (the ultimate symbol), and then making decisions based on those comparisons. The mechanism of creating, manipulating and interpreting these symbols would be thought.

OK, now onto your question re. thinking about guilt, goodness, beauty. First, I DO NOT ALWAYS THINK WITH WORDS! I think I have made this very clear. More than once. I believe that my definition of thought above incorporates how I think of these thnigs quite well. It is a very complex response with enormous amounts of subtle inputs, and these are simplifications, but... Guilt - I believe that if I do things that I am hardwired not to do, or have been taught not to do, that I have negative, physical hormonal responses. These becomes a significant input into my analysis. Beauty - again, complicated. If we are talking nature, I believe that deep rooted animal responses play a big part. If we are talking women, I believe that features that make good mates (which kicks off some strong hormonal, physical responses) plays a big part. If we are talking art, I beleve that symbols that resonate with internal symbols I like play a big part. etc. etc. etc.

I sense there is something you want to say about this issue, but are, for some reason, avoiding. Why don't you just say what you think, instead of searching for "conficts" (w/o much success imho) in what I am suggesting?

"DNA anyone?"

EXACTLY! It will be easy enough for the Kennedy's to disprove this if it is a fake. If there is enough circumstantial evidence and they balk - or put up ridiculous constraints on who/how the testing is done - then we know it is true. If not, then DNA testing will prove it not true.

Does anyone here believe that either option - a scheme to make money, or another Kennedy affair ending in pregnancy - is not a reasonable possibility?!

"Well, DF, thank you, but do you see no conflict at all between the above and your earlier post, below? How about when you think about "guilt" or "goodness" or "beauty?" Do you always think of these with words? And if you think by managing symbols, is the thought what is managing symbols, or is it the regardings of what you believe they mean? If the latter, at least at a certain level, isn't this a more essential "thing" to be called a thought? "

I certainly see no conflict between the two. I sometimes think in language. I sometimes think without language. When I think without language, I think I think with other symbols - sometimes external symbols and sometimes with ones that I create. I think. So no, I do not see inconsistencies in my two posts.

You raise a seperate question - do events or situations focus what it is I think about, or shape what it is I conclude? Clearly. If I am in pain, I tend to think about that, and how to relieve it. If I feel guilty, then I try to relieve that pain. However, I do not believe that these things are intelligence - they are factors external to intelligence that thought is called on to think about.

As a early teen (and I admit I was a strange child), I went through a period where I saw that emotions (e.g. desires for mating, marriage, etc.) were not intelligence, and that I should be able to rise above them - out-think them if you will. By 16, I had come up with a comprimise - I concluded that "happiness" is captive to these emotions, and I would need to deal with them in one way or another if I wanted to achieve a level of happiness. I worried that this was a cop-out, but I think I made the right decision.

You imply another question that is not directly related to my understanding of the original question, but interesting. Pain, mating desires, etc. are fairly easily explained by Darwin concepts. Guilt, goodness, and beauty could (and have) been cynically placed in the same category, but the arguement are less strong.

When I was 16 or 17 I worried alot about pre-destination. In my mind there are good arguements for it (although recent physics gives me some possible outs). I finally decided that if everything was pre-destined then nothing mattered anyway, so I decided to live life as if it were not true. I take the same approach to the questions of guilt, goodness, beauty. I decide that they are not strictly Darwin at work because life would not much worth living, if ture.

Me thinks that this will be of minimal success, but there is a leap of thinking re. man/machine interface that will end up being very important.

Been off for a bit. Anyway, my answers to your big questions -

Do we always think in language? - Do we never think in language?: I do both. Period end. Others can wax philosophical, but I know from my own internal experience that I do both.

Do we always think in symbols? A more interesting question: I suspect yes, but that the symbols are not always language or graphics or math equations. I suspect that we need to create symbols - internal representations of reality - to have thought. And that we have formalized some but not all of these.

I also suspect that intelligence - in the end - is the ability to create and manage symbols that represent the essense of reality in a useful way.

I OFTEN solve problems without using internal words. I kinda veg, and get a "feel" for the solution, then spend the next hour trying to put it into words.