Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:10/23/2012
Last Login:9/05/2016
Comment Thumbs: 707 total,  799 ,  92
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 90% (9/10)
Level 162 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 163 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Total Comments Made:96
FJ Points:630

latest user's comments

#103 - Racism as a concept is not illegal, but practicing it (at leas…  [+] (1 reply) 08/30/2014 on Can Americans come too? 0
User avatar
#122 - ohemgeezus (08/30/2014) [-]
Ohhh you meant in the job area, ok I was confused for a bit
#125 - What I don't understand with this is where exactly the $2000 i…  [+] (9 replies) 08/21/2014 on Random Interesting Facts... 0
User avatar
#126 - greyhoundfd (08/21/2014) [-]
Honestly I have no idea where it's coming from either. All I know is that if you have the money it's not a crappy system.
#128 - facepalmftw (08/23/2014) [-]
But do they have the money? Most first-world countries have gotten into the habit of spending money they don't actually have. And that doesn't even touch the fact that no government CREATES wealth. An economy can create wealth, a government just redistributes it. Every cent the government spends, it has to take from somewhere else.

As for your original point, I don't even know where to begin. Time IS money. Giving people money means they can work less. Sure, that means they can get more of an education, but when they work less... less work gets done. That means that the economy slows down. And what if someone has the great idea to save that extra money? The economy will slow down even faster. Money is what makes the economy move; making it, spending it, whatever. When people artificially change the financial institution, all they're doing is throwing wrenches into the machine.
User avatar
#129 - greyhoundfd (08/23/2014) [-]
The issue is that all studies which have been done to understand poverty have found that the reason programs designed to combat poverty don't work is because the poor don't have time to do them. We're not talking about people who are working one job, we're talking about people who work two or three minimum wage jobs in order to keep their family afloat. These are the people who need anti-poverty programs, and they can't use them because they're so busy working. It doesn't matter how the economy works in principle, it matters what is actually observed. This is roughly the same as arguing that communism is the greatest system on the planet because "The theory makes sense". Theory doesn't matter when real-world observation shows that it won't work.

And no, I don't know if they have the money, but this is Switzerland we're talking about, they are financially savvy to the point of infamy.
#130 - facepalmftw (08/24/2014) [-]
Show me these studies. I don't need "all of them", just a few studies that find the same thing: Wars on poverty fail because they specifically fail to free up time for poor people.
User avatar
#131 - greyhoundfd (08/24/2014) [-]
That's not what we're talking about. What I'm saying is that the poverty programs we keep trying to give poor people don't work because poor people don't have time to use the poverty programs. Essentially, it doesn't matter how cheap community colleges or universities are if families can't afford to take time out for classes.
#132 - facepalmftw (08/24/2014) [-]
And I'm saying show me these studies you keep saying prove that. If my entry-level economics don't work, show me the proof.
User avatar
#133 - greyhoundfd (08/24/2014) [-]
I don't understand why you need me to spending time in this argument proving something that is literally as simple as gravity. If people don't have time to do things, they don't do them. If you're poor and have to work multiple jobs, taking up all your time just to stay afloat, you're not going to be able to use programs that take time in your day.
#134 - facepalmftw (08/24/2014) [-]
Basic economics states that time is money. IF you have more money you can spend time doing things other than making money. You are claiming that poverty assistance programs that give money fail because they don't address the problem of time. You keep saying that we can't just give money, that we need to help poor people free up their time, while totally ignoring the fact that having money means you don't have to spend time working. How is this so difficult for you to understand me?
User avatar
#135 - greyhoundfd (08/24/2014) [-]
What? No. I was saying that this program was a great solution because it means the poor don't have to spend as much time making money. Instead of working, they can actually take classes. The programs I was criticizing were the US ones which provide classes to help the poor not be poor, but fail utterly because the poor have no time to attend the classes.
#54 - Most people aren't entirely straight even if they claim to be …  [+] (1 reply) 08/14/2014 on What's happening on /pol... +1
User avatar
#64 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
Besides, there's no obligation to let HIS dick ever come into play.
An ass is an ass is an ass.
#6 - From a purely scientific viewpoint, it is rather far fetched. …  [+] (18 replies) 08/14/2014 on Anon +40
#105 - anon (08/18/2014) [-]
Okay Spock. Thank you for your view.
#77 - anon (08/14/2014) [-]
I would be full on atheist if not for the ghosts. Been haunted ever since I was born, and stuff flies around our house, there are people and voices that every one near me can hear. The ghosts were proof enough for me of a soul.
#69 - blancka (08/14/2014) [-]
I know what you're saying scientifically, but I think the teleportation debate is relevant here. I.E. If your matter is deconstructed one place, and reconstructed another, "You" cease to exist. You are dead essentially, and what's left is a clone of yourself essentially, except with the idea that teleportation has no negative effects, as they remember both entering and exiting the machine.

Even though scientifically you would be identical, even the same person, you would no longer be the same consciousness. It's confusing to say the least, but that's what makes me think there may be more.

I mean, scientifically, what we call sentience shouldn't exist. If anything sentience would just be an illusion. We're all just robots with cells instead of wires reacting to stimuli being processed by the brain. But then why am I myself and not some random dog or fish or bird? And why can I view things through my own eyes.

It becomes difficult to talk about because basically, we are robots reacting to stimuli. But individually we see ourselves and sentience comes into play. The only one we can know is sentient and not reacting to stimuli is ourselves, which is a crazy concept in its own right.
User avatar
#81 - blacksmithgu (08/14/2014) [-]
I see the teleportation argument and the "robots reacting to stimuli" as aiding the argument of consciousness being just a consequence of how our brain works and operates - if you can deconstruct and reconstruct "yourself" (a clone, as you say) via machine, it would show that nothing more is required to create human life. The human created would essentially be you, and have a consciousness and sentience that is exactly equivalent to the one you had before you were constructed. In that sense, that clone is you for all intents and purposes - sentience and all.

Note that humans, while technically still robots who react to stimuli, maintain a sentience/consciousness as a consequence of the continual operation of the brain even when no external stimuli are present. In other words, we have an active consciousness which makes us distinct because our brain is in a constant state of operation which is not only capable of reacting to stimuli, but to applying rationality and feelings to create or predict new stimuli. In this sense, humans are more than just robots reacting to stimuli.

Sorry for being long-winded. Esoteric topics call for esoteric responses, I suppose.
User avatar
#41 - sciencexplain (08/14/2014) [-]
Even though I'm massively pro-science, I've always been a believer that our universe exists on a plane, and there are several planes. I like to believe that consciousness is spiritual, and whilst the body dies, much like in religion, the consciousness lives in inside another being or in an afterlife or whatever. I just like to think that since we can't disprove it, we can't shrug it off as false. However, I also accept that it is mainly because I fear death and struggle to cope with the idea of my consciousness permanently ending.
User avatar
#73 - YllekNayr (08/14/2014) [-]
TIL Sciencexplain is religious and doesn't understand the burden of proof
User avatar
#91 - sciencexplain (08/15/2014) [-]
Burden of proof? Please, explain, using proof, how my belief is an impossibility or is invalid.
User avatar
#99 - YllekNayr (08/15/2014) [-]
"I just like to think that since we can't disprove it, we can't shrug it off as false."

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Supernatural claims are false until proven to be true. We have no reason whatsoever to believe any of that exists, so we don't NEED to prove it false.

See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
#11 - endospore (08/14/2014) [-]
I disagree. From a purely scientific stand point, we can't make life from nothing. We can build the body parts, put them together, but we can't start life or restart it once someone's dead.

That says to me that there's something else contributing to life other than just electrical or chemical impulses. We should theoretically be able to emulate them and create a person if that were the case. We can't, so it makes sense to me that there's some spark or some other thing that contributes to life.

Now when we die, that spark could still just go out and there could be nothing, but it could also retain our consciousness somehow. The collective unconscious proposed by Freud is one thing, it could be recycled due to conservation of energy and we'd essentially reincarnate, a la Buddhism, or it could go somewhere else, akin to electrons jumping energy levels, and that somewhere else could be anything.
User avatar
#70 - kingderps (08/14/2014) [-]
The collective unconsciousness I believe has to do with how our brains and experiences are similar enough that we think almost as one on 'subconscious' level. But I may be mistaken. I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve spirits or anything supernatural.
User avatar
#19 - jukuku (08/14/2014) [-]
Your logic is flawed and it is not scientifically reasoned as you claim it is.

The "If we can't make it work than it must be beyond the physical realm" argument doesn't really have much validity.
User avatar
#17 - revanmal (08/14/2014) [-]
We can't restart life? Sure we can. There's many reported cases of people being resuscitated even after brain functions ceased. This might beg the question of what exactly we define as being truly "dead" but that's a matter of opinion.

And building a body is nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. Flesh and bone and organs are vastly complex things, especially a brain. We lack the technology and biological knowledge to make a person out of whole cloth. Maybe one day we could. but right now that's not really feasible.
User avatar
#16 - blacksmithgu (08/14/2014) [-]
But we're not making life from nothing, are we? Living, from a scientific viewpoint, is a process in which cells execute a certain number of vital tasks which they are capable of doing - processing energy, proteins, replicating and a few other tasks. Put together trillions upon trillions of these cells with some diversification and you have the human body in all of it's glory. The brain itself is a collection of trillions of specialized cells which create the consciousness through their specific connections and electrical impulses. Once the electrical impulses stop...so does the brain and thus the consciousness.

The trick is not just putting together all of the body parts, but putting them together in such a harmony that biological organisms have managed to do over the course of 4 billion years. We can't do it now, but that doesn't mean we never will be able to. Computers are perhaps the greatest evidence of our increasing ability to create complex systems. A computer is nothing but a bunch of silicon and wire, yet it is capable of executing trillions of computations per second and supporting huge systems such as the internet all because we run power through it in a specific way.

There's a lot to be said about consciousness, but I think there's little stopping humans from creating life, even if it's artificial.
User avatar
#7 - seriouslyblack (08/14/2014) [-]
once you're actually dead, your brain stops working so you won't feel any emotion. you won't feel sorry for yourself or your family that you may never see them again. so even if you're afraid of the idea of non-existence, it's more than likely that once you don't exist, you won't have the ability to give a shit.
User avatar
#12 - retardeddinosaur (08/14/2014) [-]
change that color, fag. Can't read shit
User avatar
#71 - kingderps (08/14/2014) [-]
He wrote it in his own blood!
#49 - anon (08/14/2014) [-]
then you should learn to read
User avatar
#8 - blacksmithgu (08/14/2014) [-]
That's pretty much the biggest "consolation" you can give about death, as unreassuring as it is.
#38 - Apologies. I was too lazy to check but I knew it was was some …  [+] (3 replies) 08/10/2014 on Bluffing 0
User avatar
#39 - Geopi (08/10/2014) [-]
It's okay. Just so you know for future reference, a lot of the former colonies of the UK (including Israel) gained independence just after World War II (a lot of them around 1948-1956).
#73 - anon (08/10/2014) [-]
Israel was never a colony because it never existed before. Palestinians lived under british colonialism, and then started (till now) to live under jewish colonialism.
#106 - elaxx (08/10/2014) [-]
Jewish colonialism? Ugh... how is Israel a colony? That would imply that there is another Jewish state somewhere.
[ 96 Total ]

user's friends