I'm hurt, sir. Hurt and offended!

That was just a ploy to get you post something. 

fuck him, then. 

why you are taking it so personaly, distrans. I have yet to attack you and I have only commented on your ideas and your actions.

Here is a little background: Friday afternoon, some where there abouts, I noticed the discussion on determinism that Tronyn and Jiri_b brought up.

I did a scan of the materials they linked to and said to myself, 'hey this is pretty cool, what if I brought in Lorenz work to the discussion and see where that leads.' I write up a few paragraphs and then it hits me, this is the func_board. If you post it, you are just opening yourself up to anyone whose personal egos are tied up into the ideas they support or the ones they oppose. You will get nothing but grief, so why bother?

At that point, I erased the message, and went my merry way. I ran a few errands, met a friend for a few drinks, got a burger on my way home. I come back and read the func_board, and right there it was; I read Lun's post and yours as well, and damn if Lunaran didn't fall into the trap that I almost did.

Dozens of times I have stopped myself from posting because the grief is not worth my time and the effort put into a discussion, but because the acrimony has become this predictable, I decided to say something about it.

distrans, you have never stood out in my mind as being a dickhead or the like, and like I have said before, I don't hold grudges. It may be only a matter of misfortune that you fell into my crosshairs, but I hope you understand now that there was a higher purpose beyond the ranting of two headstrong egos. 

supposedly im a colon, too 

...that was an extremely noble action Headthump, I tip my hat. (NB: this is genuine)

Blackdog: time's up

On another matter, I'm slightly confused by facets of the American education system. In Oz, "college" is generally (though not exclusively) either an alternative to high school or a vocational training institute. What does "college" mean in the US? 

Means you have to work for 4 years at a job you hate so you can pay to go to a place you don't want to go so that you can be told you're stupid.

QED. 

You've likely noticed you can't login to FTP for the past few days. This is due to a server moved by my host. I just heard back on how to login now.

To login, use the new address of: image.apisnetworks.com
and add to the end of your username @leveldesign.org (ex: "scampie" becomes "scampie@leveldesign.org")
Your password will be the same as it's been

Let me know (here, or irc, or scampbell@ravensoft.com) if you have any issues. 

Effectively its what Zwiffle said, except sometimes you have to work 5 years, some people want to go there, and you're not always told you're stupid (this happens most often with professors from the former USSR).

However, in more formal terms, "college" is basically any post-secondary education, although I guess it is used less often by someone seeking a PhD. In the US, I have never heard "college" used to describe any sort of high-school alternative, but it does describe vocational training institutions, 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and full-blown universities. 

to log out with your cog out. 

I never knew those were released:
http://www.langsuyar.com/files/quake/bbmaps.zip 

source maps is in every idgames2 mirror: http://www.quaddicted.com/idgames2/partial_conversions/beyond_belief/bbmaps.zip 

Is a voluntary education of 2 years to 4 years and possibly more depending on the major/vocation. 

had some good points. I'm tired of reading about everyone reading into "omg everything is predetermined, I don't have a soul" speculation and jumping these huge vast gaps like they were never there.

I happen to know a bit about how the brain functions. In a technical and physical way.
I didn't bother to read the whole article, it was written far too much in press article type, and I'm tired of that. Describing the california futurist was a telltale sign. Wired itself writes stuff like that a lot.

"Telling rabbits apart from hares is a task considered impossible since Descartes wrote his theses in the cold towers of Chalmers castle. Yet, beyond the shiny rows of test tubes in a small californian university laboratory sits a misfigured little man whose burning eyes tell of a lifelong desire for these long-eared animals. When leading me under imposing rows of small skeletons and hides he boasts to have found the final solution."

Anyway, imaging how the brain functions is almost "everyday" nowadays in the 21st century. MEG or magnetoencephalography sees where neurons fire, so in that way it's direct imaging. It uses superconducting "quantum" sensors btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography 

there isn't a very widely accepted theory of consciousness yet afaik. There are numerous candidates of course, they seem quite... glossy and popularized and don't make much predictions. This is all just afaik and vague etc, I haven't bothered to delve into this too much as the revealing returns seem slim. 

For example I'd need a good 300 words to explain why the conditional in your second para doesn't hold. I'd need to give a couple of "lectures" on logic before demonstrating that the "argument" in your third para isn't cogent. Then we'd have to have several exchanges until we knocked that last para of yours into something that actually made some sort of sense...then we could debate it.

or;

"Yeah, you're wrong. You are in fact so wrong, I shan't be bothered to explain to you why. My brain is so astoundingly spectacular that if I were to let you in on my magnificence, you'd piss your pants. I'm so fantastic; all you sniveling shits would be lost without me."

--

I'd go with the second option. It's more honest, really. 

Consciousness is an adaptation. I'd bet the bank on that, and I'd feel safe doing so.

Anyway, consciousness might just be one of the most exciting things about the mind, so it's well worth studying. Besides, the physical map of the brain isn't everything. The functions derived from it are equally revealing. 

Consciousness is an adaptation.

Interesting, because if consciousness confers a functional advantage, then it should be physically detectable, and we can easily settle the question of whether a computer, or a dolphin, or a tapeworm, is conscious.

I'm more in the camp that a conscious mind and an unconscious thinking machine are functionally identical, and only the mind itself is aware of the fact that it is conscious. I think this is a general assumption that many (most?) philosophers make. 

... I think you are probably correct about the generally held view and this "awareness of being aware" is slippery thing to pin down (much like qualia).

Guys: thanks for clearing up the "college" terminology. Seems both sides of the pacific use it broadly, with enough occasional similarity to allow for misunderstanding. C'est la vie.

Wrath: out of context therefore incorrect interpretation, but hugs for not letting me down :) 

For a long time I've felt like arguements that are ultimately deterministic cannot be beat. I still fail to understand how free will can exist in a 100% materialistic world. There is the possibility of something beyond logic, which is a point much abused by the protestants, which could allow for free will. But within logic and science I just can't see how there could be such a thing as free will. If a cat just responds its environment, in a way "automatically" judging the best response to a given situation based on genetics and past experience, I don't see what kind of choice the cat has made. There could be a more cowardly cat and a more bold cat, but does any of this come back to willpower? Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that as I write this that I am making some kind of conscious thought process and infact choice, but just because it appears that way to me doesn't mean it's true. 

for good reason, but I had a horrible vision that I needed to share:

After Royal is elected President in France, and Clinton is elected here in the States, there will be a meeting between the two in which the sexy, French vixen goes up to her rather mannish looking counter part and asks innocently enough,'is that a polyester blend?'

After which of course there will be a catfight that leads to a bloody nuclear war between our
proud nations. 

... compatibilists try to allow for both free will and determinism in humans without recourse to some third entity but within logic by deeming that the meeting of certain conditions fulfills the requirements for a free choice. For example, one variety of compatibilism has it that a choice is free if it is the result of one's deliberation, such that if the deliberation had been different the choice would have been different. Versions of compatibilism are manifold and sometimes I think the debate strays too far from its metaphysical roots into ethics. Ah well!

The question I'm more interested in is "if determinism is true, have we lost anything really important." Up till now the answer has always seemed to be, no.

...and if this is all old hat to you, my apologies. 

socrates would make all of you look stupid if you talked to him 

Haven't you heard of the Socratic Method? 

I QUIT! 

"The sands of time lay heavy on the eylids of the world" - at least while all this psuedo-intellectualism reigns.

I'm with Trinca.