Deep Thoughts

[UnkaD]

Do you mean solipsism?

I guess that describes it. Pretty much like a video game where only the stuff in a local vicinity is rendered. I had a weird imagination and that sort of stuff would keep me up at night. Sometimes it would extend to the idea that if I strayed too far from home I would reach a void and disappear too. So I suppose it would flip flop between my own observable reality and a reality that I'm familiar with and only part of but is nonetheless a limited reality.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I guess that describes it. Pretty much like a video game where only the stuff in a local vicinity is rendered. I had a weird imagination and that sort of stuff would keep me up at night. Sometimes it would extend to the idea that if I strayed too far from home I would reach a void and disappear too. So I suppose it would flip flop between my own observable reality and a reality that I'm familiar with and only part of but is nonetheless a limited reality.

Can definitely identify with that.

Wish there was more research on it (though ironically, who exactly would be doing the research?)

 

[Danoff]

I'll hand-wring about whether or not to make a purchase for quite some time. And then once I decide to go for it, suddenly I mentally shift to "it needs to have already been done". Why is it so painful to wait for something I wasn't even sure was worth it? A moment ago, I was living in a world where I didn't need this thing. Then I wrestled with whether or not I did, and just because I landed on the side of yes I'm now frustrated at having to live without it until it's in my hands? What is that?

Right this second I'm going through this stupid game over a pair of headphones I ordered.... ironically I have headphones (old and busted, not the new hotness) on my head while I pine over the headphones I ordered but which have not arrived. This has got to be one of the dumbest things going.

 

[TB]

A moment ago, I was living in a world where I didn't need this thing. Then I wrestled with whether or not I did, and just because I landed on the side of yes I'm now frustrated at having to live without it until it's in my hands? What is that?

I'm doing the exact same thing for my bike tires.

And I also don't know why.

 

[Michael88]

I had a similar thought when I first heard of colour blindness.
My body is pretty knackered but my optics are stellar and I’ve always wondered if what I see is somehow different to what somebody else sees, like comparing 4K to standard definition.

You probably see differently, but I cannot imagine it. Lets say, an eagle can spot its prey, a rabbit, from over 2 miles away. The crazy thing is, without magnification! I cannot even compute that level of eyesight, it would take me forever to find that rabbit with this kind of resolution even if it were a physical picture I could look at for as long as I wanted. If I zoomed out to make the picture big enough for my field of view its absolutely impossible to identify anything as a rabbit.

Its similar to trying to think of new colors. Its impossible, but the pistol shrimp can see several dozen more colors than we can, we know this because its eyes have several more receptors for other kind of colors.

Thing is, we only see a fraction of the world. If we had super vision the world would look totally different, what we see is just an interpretation of the world constructed from very limited amounts of data, that goes through several filters.

Its a scary thought to realize the world you and me are living in looks actually totally different than what we see.

 

[Danoff]

I used to play a game called command and conquer. It was a typical RTS game where you would build factories, amass resources, and build an army to go destroy the opponent. I remember that there was this unit called a "hacker" when you played the Chinese team.

The hacker was special because it was a unit that could produce money (resources) from nothing. You never ran out of resources from them, if you could just sit them somewhere and not get them killed, they'd open their little laptop wherever you put them and just make money out of thin air. If you left them there, they'd just keep making money. It felt like cheating. You mean the crystals never run out? The vespene gas never depletes? The forest never gets cut down? There's no building that has to be protected or maintained? You just... make a unit, and it makes you money?

Sometimes this is how I feel about what I do. I sit at a computer all day and make money. I just sit here and type on my keyboard, move the mouse a little, use my brain a lot, and value (in the form of currency) is generated out of thin air. It doesn't feel like it should be possible. I'm not chopping down a tree or swinging a pickaxe.

Edit:

On a similar note, I had the same though about a room we had built in our basement. We paid 10s of thousands of dollars to have a construction team come out and finish part of the basement. It was clear that "our" money was given to them in exchange for a basement. So we got a thing which was produced by our money.

But not really, because the value of the house went up. So really we gave them 10s of thousands of dollars but they turned around and gave us those 10s of thousands back (maybe even plus a little more) in the form of equity in the house.

So where did the basement come from? We gave them value, they gave it back to us... but what value built the basement? The answer is, they did.

What really happened was that the basement people spent weeks working in our house creating value out of thin air. They labored for a while and created something worth 10s of thousands out of some sticks and drywall. In a few weeks, there was 10s of thousands of dollars of additional value in the world, where previously there had not been. And to enable this, we transferred some cash into equity.

We paid nothing. Sure we gave them cash, but they gave it back to us in equity. It has rarely been more clear to me that someone generated their own income than in that example. They labored for a while and paid themselves.

 

[Grand Prix]

Our perception of historical dates is weird. 1920 was a hundred years ago, which today, seems like a very long time ago. When we look further back in history, the perceived difference for a hundred years changes. For 1200-1300AD, the difference feels smaller. For 3100-3000BC, it gets smaller still. For the Cretaceous Period, the passage of a hundred years might as well be non-existent.

Filmmakers fall into this trap all the time. Especially with the Medieval period. For an example, Braveheart. Braveheart has swords in it that should really belong in a 16th century setting, yet the story takes place in the 13th century. A sword is a sword, right? Many audiences have found this to be acceptable in this period piece, since the difference in technology is "only" 300 years. There are enough historical inaccuracies in Braveheart that it would take days to cover them all, it's just one example.

I can just imagine a team of filmmakers 500 years from now, making a period piece about the US Civil War, with the soldiers using M16s. Since the M16 came "only" a hundred years after the Civil War, it will seem like a reasonable choice. A gun is a gun, right?

 

[Michael88]

I can just imagine a team of filmmakers 500 years from now, making a period piece about the US Civil War, with the soldiers using M16s. Since the M16 came "only" a hundred years after the Civil War, it will seem like a reasonable choice. A gun is a gun, right?

I don't think this would happen, the M16 would DRAMATICALLY change the battle tactics while a different sword type hardly does. The M16 holds 30 rounds, with it you can (ideally) take down 30 enemies in mere seconds, reload and do the same again while with a rifled musket of that era you get off about 3 shots / minute.
If the film was as historically inaccurate it would be all sorts of illogical.

I actually think the opposite will happen, with additional data and ever increasing quality in film making accuracy and quality will improve.

 

[Grand Prix]

I don't think this would happen, the M16 would DRAMATICALLY change the battle tactics while a different sword type hardly does. The M16 holds 30 rounds, with it you can (ideally) take down 30 enemies in mere seconds, reload and do the same again while with a rifled musket of that era you get off about 3 shots / minute.
If the film was as historically inaccurate it would be all sorts of illogical.

I actually think the opposite will happen, with additional data and ever increasing quality in film making accuracy and quality will improve.

Of course it would, you are right. Here's the thing about swords: They came in many different designs, with different contexts behind their use.

Let's have a look at the sword used by Mel Gibson's William Wallace in Braveheart:

That is essentially a 16th century great sword. A sword that came about in a period of warfare that favored the use of the pike, as seen here. Now there is some debate over whether the great sword was actually used to break up pike formations, it may have just been used by body guards. However, a sword of this length has different applications of use than a 13th century one-handed arming sword. The great sword was almost like a polearm, and it was typically carried on the shoulder during marching, not at the side as most swords were. (With the exception of the Romans, in most historical contexts swords were sidearms - back-up weapons) The point is, it does not belong in that time period, but people tend to overlook that, as the difference in time was "only" 300 years in a long ago period. Their perception of time got skewed.

The kilts and facial paint are from very different time periods as well.

There is a sword in existence that is reputed to be THE William Wallace sword, this is the sword the filmmakers probably based their fantasy on, but it has a complicated history, and most likely did not look like it's current form in the 13th century. It has a 16th century hilt and a blade that has been skillfully forge-welded from three pieces of steel to make a longer blade. In other words, someone, or multiple people over time, took Wallace's sword (if it was indeed his sword) and forged a forgery.

_____________________________________________

You brought up a good point about people starting to perform better research before they make a period piece, and I somewhat agree. However, there are still lots of willfully ignorant filmmakers out there, even with the advent of the internet. Not everyone is a Stanley Kubrick. There will always be directors that will drop accuracy in favor of convenience, or telling a better story. Many audiences like that approach, for better or worse. Tuco entering a gun shop and assembling a "super pistol" from different models of revolvers in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's a great scene.

Sorry, got a bit carried away there.

 

[TexRex]

great sword

What's so great about it?

 

[Grand Prix]

What's so great about it?

If you really want to know, it's a broad categorization of sword from the 16th century and Renaissance period that has a two-handed grip, a ricasso, a wider than average handguard, sometimes with ring guards, and a very lengthy blade. It has different names depending on the place of origin: Zweihander (German), Montante (Spanish), Spadone (Italian), and Claymore (Scottish, not to be confused with the basket-hilt "Claymore" broadsword, which also shouldn't be confused with the arming swords the Victorians called "broadswords" because they also had a "broad", double-edged blade like the basket-hilt broadsword from their time, understand? ).



The Zweihander in action:

 

[polysmut]

On a similar note, I had the same though about a room we had built in our basement. We paid 10s of thousands of dollars to have a construction team come out and finish part of the basement. It was clear that "our" money was given to them in exchange for a basement. So we got a thing which was produced by our money.

But not really, because the value of the house went up. So really we gave them 10s of thousands of dollars but they turned around and gave us those 10s of thousands back (maybe even plus a little more) in the form of equity in the house.

So where did the basement come from? We gave them value, they gave it back to us... but what value built the basement? The answer is, they did.

What really happened was that the basement people spent weeks working in our house creating value out of thin air. They labored for a while and created something worth 10s of thousands out of some sticks and drywall. In a few weeks, there was 10s of thousands of dollars of additional value in the world, where previously there had not been. And to enable this, we transferred some cash into equity.

We paid nothing. Sure we gave them cash, but they gave it back to us in equity. It has rarely been more clear to me that someone generated their own income than in that example. They labored for a while and paid themselves.

I'm not sure this adds anything but...

The value could only be created because you provided the demand. The basement people had no use for the completed basement but they found somebody who does. This provided them with some money to use within the society (the community of all people who use money) they have laboured in.

 

[DesertPenguin]

If you really want to know, it's a broad categorization of sword from the 16th century and Renaissance period that has a two-handed grip, a ricasso, a wider than average handguard, sometimes with ring guards, and a very lengthy blade. It has different names depending on the place of origin: Zweihander (German), Montante (Spanish), Spadone (Italian), and Claymore (Scottish, not to be confused with the basket-hilt "Claymore" broadsword, which also shouldn't be confused with the arming swords the Victorians called "broadswords" because they also had a "broad", double-edged blade like the basket-hilt broadsword from their time, understand? ).



The Zweihander in action:

Zweihander means two hander. That's all I got.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure this adds anything but...

The value could only be created because you provided the demand. The basement people had no use for the completed basement but they found somebody who does. This provided them with some money to use within the society (the community of all people who use money) they have laboured in.

Likewise, they provided demand for dollars. Sure someone else could have provided demand for dollars, but someone else could also have provided a basement finish.

Economically speaking, most workers create their own paycheck. If someone makes a pizza and sells it, that person created the $15 or whatever that their pizza brought in. It only looks like it comes from the customer. It was actually created out of dough, tomato sauce, and cheese. It's just harder to see because you need to see that the customer still has all of the value that they brought to the pizza shop. They exchanged $15 for a pizza to eat, which they valued at $15 (at least). Meaning the customer gave away something and got something they thought was at least of equal value. When you give someone money, you essentially are never actually "paying" for anything. You walk away even handed, and so does the person that takes your money and gives you a product. It's an even exchange, no wealth is created or lost in this exchange (generally speaking).

The pizza maker creates this value out of thin air. It's just so much harder to see, in my opinion, than a basement. Where I can measure the improvement in the equity of my house and compare dollars for dollars equity.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I've thought about the trade that occurs somewhat before. Before people used to trade different goods (pigs for cows or labor). Now we have pieces of paper with agreed upon value, which we can trade for various goods and services.

 

[DesertPenguin]

I've thought about the trade that occurs somewhat before. Before people used to trade different goods (pigs for cows or labor). Now we have pieces of paper with agreed upon value, which we can trade for various goods and services.

I've thought about this ever since I was a child. We pay the man at the store for the milk. That money goes towards the store's expenses. Why? Because those companies ask for money in return for their services. Why do they need money? To take care of expenses. And so it goes. But what if somewhere in that chain someone didn't ask for money in return for services, and decided to do something just to do it? That won't work because the person requires money to buy the tools required for said service. Capitalism is a bitch.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

But what if somewhere in that chain someone didn't ask for money in return for services, and decided to do something just to do it? That won't work because the person requires money to buy the tools required for said service.

That would be a donation and hopefully the person has enough money, or profit, already to be able to provide that free of charge.

 

[DesertPenguin]

That would be a donation and hopefully the person has enough money, or profit, already to be able to provide that free of charge.

Yes, but if this paper stuff is meaningless then their profit is nonexistent

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

That sounds like communism, not capitalism.

 

[Michael88]

If a computer creates an image of the exact position of every atom in my body, kills me and instantly reprints me in an atomic printer, is my consciousness saved? Or is the original me dead and the clone has a new consciousness that is exactly as mine, but is still another person? If so, why? Consciousness is solely created in the brain and is simply a result of this specific system, so if it is the exact same system both should me the one me. The new but cloned system should still be the real me, and not another person.

Consequentially, if there is an age difference, say I am 65 and a clone of me when I was 30 is created, it has to be another person independent of the current me and not the current ''me'' since there are too many differences between those two brains, they produce different consciousnesses. But if this is true, that means as I progress through life and change as a system, the consciousness I produce constantly changes. But why is this still ''me'' all the time and not a new person?
Why are those different versions of consciousness still anchored to that ''me'', so I can feel, experience and live and not cease to exist and become another person? Do I actually, in a sense, die all the time?

How different has a system to be so I cannot be ''it''? Obviously, I am just one person and not several at the same time, yet I have been ''myself'' from when I was 10 years old to now, 31 years. There is a HUGE difference between 10 year old and 31 year old me.

 

[Rallywagon]

If a computer creates an image of the exact position of every atom in my body, kills me and instantly reprints me in an atomic printer, is my consciousness saved? Or is the original me dead and the clone has a new consciousness that is exactly as mine, but is still another person? If so, why? Consciousness is solely created in the brain and is simply a result of this specific system, so if it is the exact same system both should me the one me. The new but cloned system should still be the real me, and not another person.

Consequentially, if there is an age difference, say I am 65 and a clone of me when I was 30 is created, it has to be another person independent of the current me and not the current ''me'' since there are too many differences between those two brains, they produce different consciousnesses. But if this is true, that means as I progress through life and change as a system, the consciousness I produce constantly changes. But why is this still ''me'' all the time and not a new person?
Why are those different versions of consciousness still anchored to that ''me'', so I can feel, experience and live and not cease to exist and become another person? Do I actually, in a sense, die all the time?

How different has a system to be so I cannot be ''it''? Obviously, I am just one person and not several at the same time, yet I have been ''myself'' from when I was 10 years old to now, 31 years. There is a HUGE difference between 10 year old and 31 year old me.

I suppose it all depends on how memories, and thus experience is saved in the brain. If it's something physical, that can be copied then I suppose you would be you after the replication. If memories do not, or are fragmented, I dont think you would come out with the same personality.

 

[W3H5]

If a computer creates an image of the exact position of every atom in my body, kills me and instantly reprints me in an atomic printer, is my consciousness saved?

Nah. You may be replicated in the flesh, but the neuro connections that make you you couldn’t be replicated. It might be a physical fax of your physical self but the replication of neuroconnections would be like trying to replicate the pattern of a fire using the same fuel in the same set up. Just ain’t gonna happen.

I suppose that would go some way towards considering a consciousness unique and procedural.

 

[Danoff]

If a computer creates an image of the exact position of every atom in my body, kills me and instantly reprints me in an atomic printer, is my consciousness saved? Or is the original me dead and the clone has a new consciousness that is exactly as mine, but is still another person? If so, why? Consciousness is solely created in the brain and is simply a result of this specific system, so if it is the exact same system both should me the one me. The new but cloned system should still be the real me, and not another person.

So let's call your clone Michael 89. And let's say that the moment it's created, Michael 88 and Michael 89 are both unconscious, and wake up in the same room, unaware of how they got there from when they went to sleep. You would both claim to be Michael 88. Neither of you would think you were Michael 89. You would both remember the person you were a moment before the cloning. In that instance, it might even seem important to you to figure out which of you were Michael 88. But after a day of divergent experiences, you would each probably not care whether you were called 89 or 88, because you would have established a new set of memories, and "know" yourself as distinct from the clone.

The real you would be tracking atoms in this case, but from the perspective of consciousness it wouldn't matter. They're both you until they diverge.

 

[DesertPenguin]

This is a topic among Star Trek fans. When you get transported your original body is completely destroyed and a new you is created on the other end. It's not so much transportation as it is instant replication. But consciousness? I don't think it's ever thoroughly brought up in canon so people go nuts with the theories

 

[zzz_pt]

If a computer creates an image of the exact position of every atom in my body, kills me and instantly reprints me in an atomic printer, is my consciousness saved? Or is the original me dead and the clone has a new consciousness that is exactly as mine, but is still another person? If so, why? Consciousness is solely created in the brain and is simply a result of this specific system, so if it is the exact same system both should me the one me. The new but cloned system should still be the real me, and not another person.

Consequentially, if there is an age difference, say I am 65 and a clone of me when I was 30 is created, it has to be another person independent of the current me and not the current ''me'' since there are too many differences between those two brains, they produce different consciousnesses. But if this is true, that means as I progress through life and change as a system, the consciousness I produce constantly changes. But why is this still ''me'' all the time and not a new person?
Why are those different versions of consciousness still anchored to that ''me'', so I can feel, experience and live and not cease to exist and become another person? Do I actually, in a sense, die all the time?

How different has a system to be so I cannot be ''it''? Obviously, I am just one person and not several at the same time, yet I have been ''myself'' from when I was 10 years old to now, 31 years. There is a HUGE difference between 10 year old and 31 year old me.

I don't think it would be you because what makes you you are your memories and experiences. If you replicate a physical system atom by atom, your memories, experiences and consciousness won't be replicated too (I think).

So the new body could maybe have muscle memory for some of the things you do repeatedly, but I believe it would be another person (if we could even call it that) as a blan slate, with no identity.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think it would be you because what makes you you are your memories and experiences. If you replicate a physical system atom by atom, your memories, experiences and consciousness won't be replicated too (I think).

Where do you think your memories, experiences, and consciousness exist if not atoms (and I presume subatomic particles)?

 

[zzz_pt]

Where do you think your memories, experiences, and consciousness exist if not atoms (and I presume subatomic particles)?

In my brain. But I find it hard to believe a replica of the atoms that make up my brain would store all the properties that emerged from it when it was inside my skull.

 

[Danoff]

In my brain. But I find it hard to believe a replica of the atoms that make up my brain would store all the properties that emerged from it when it was inside my skull.

Your brain is composed of atoms and subatomic particles. What else do you think your brain is composed of?

 

[zzz_pt]

Your brain is composed of atoms and subatomic particles. What else do you think your brain is composed of?

I know that. But we still don't know how the immaterial properties of the brain (let's call it consciousness) arises. We don't know if replicating a brain means replicating the consciousness which it held.

I'm no expert in this subject, obviously, just an interested.

 

[Danoff]

I know that. But we still don't know how the immaterial properties of the brain (let's call it consciousness) arises. We don't know if replicating a brain means replicating the consciousness which it held.

I'm no expert in this subject, obviously, just an interested.

Immaterial properties? You mean electrical signals passed between neurons?