Sayonara

Two jokes in one - bonus!

If we take "it is in fact mind that creates reality? And that the 'real' world does not actually exists" to mean the following: - The mind in question is not necessarily the same as (or similar to) what we understand as being a mind, - Everything we commonly consider to be a product of reality is only an element of one such mind, - The origins of such a reality can never be known, ...then there are several points that can be deduced. Since there is no distinction between the reality of this hypothetical mind and what we call reality, terms such as 'virtual' or 'illusion' are malapropisms. The fact that we are considering reality as being the product of one mind only dictates that, since concepts such as character traits, motives and even what we understand as reason are simply attributes of that reality, they do not necessarily apply to the functional role of the mind in question. Since we can not distinguish between a communally experienced, observer-independent reality, and one that is the sole experience of a single mind, which one it actually is makes no odds either way.

No. The mere act of creation does not denote control. I'm not sure what "does the mind create reality" has to do with Wigner's paradox per se (unless the question is going to get more specific later on), but I think we can safely say that since this question that is as old as philosophy itself, it's going to take a bit more effort.

A few of those I have seen before, on a chain e-mail someone made the mistake of sending me. I was quite bored at the time so I replied to each and every one and sent it back with 'reply all'. I'll dig that out later as it was crushingly funny (well, for an outside observer).

What? This isn't like the "You are the ruler of everything" thread.

I think you started posting that before I finished my edit - see second paragraph --^ You already experience thoughts of actions and events that are unlikely or contrary to your nature during dreams, and they are a kind of reality that you are creating.

Errr... YT, if your brain is creating the reality you experience, and you read about a bus crash in some far-flung country, the bus crash doesn't actually need to be 'constructed' and neither does the country. Experiencing non-solicited thoughts like that would be no more unusual an event than the processes your brain carries out without your 'orders' or knowledge.

The words broke and broker entered English via different routes. Check out the histories on dictionary.com Dried bread, and not dried particularly well. It will still rot. Why should they? Winding up a watch refers to the mechanical action of tightening a spring. Winding up a project is a metaphor for pulling everything together into a final outcome. [Edit] As one might wind threads onto a spool. Put like that, I see no reason why they can't be interchangeable terms. A wise guy is not necessarily lacking in wisdom, and a wise man may well be fascetious. Also it's possible to be both. I don't see that they are opposites. They don't. Technically yes. The Ancient Greek deimos (if I remember correctly) meant 'terrible ', but also meant 'wise' and 'great'. Afaik it is only during its transition through English that it took on a negative connotation. [Edit] Further research shows that terribilis in Latin came from terrere, 'to frighten'. Certainly it's possible that something could be so good it is frightening. The dictionary definitions of terrific are: Very good or fine; splendid: a terrific tennis player. Awesome; astounding: drove at a terrific rate of speed. Causing terror or great fear; terrifying: a terrific wail. Very bad or unpleasant; frightful: a terrific headache. And as it turns out it comes from terrificus, which again is rooted in terrere. First bit: I would debate that "I am." is a properly structured sentence. Second bit: Not with today's divorce system. I have never seen a lighted electrician, barked tree surgeon or pressed dry-cleaner, but the others may well actually occur The same reason people press elevator or road crossing buttons that are already illuminated. No more or less than anyone else I'd imagine.

The argument that your mind creates reality does not necessarily require that you are fully aware of that reality in a conscious sense.

3DS Max used to ship with a dongle, back in the dark ages.

For (2), the key word you are looking for is "algorithm".

There's always another troll around the corner.

Something tells me that if any credible evidence that plant consciousness might exist had ever arisen, there'd be a hell of a lot of research in that area. There's plenty of research going on in plant responses (like YT mentioned), but response does not denote consciousness or awareness. For god's sake, these people could at least use Occam's Razor.

I wasn't opposed to anything - all I asked was "why". Plant + polygraph = such bad experimental design that we can safely assume this did not happen, or at least not in that way, and attribute stories of it to chinese whispers.

While there are certainly bad distros, there is no "best" version of Linux. There are only distros that are more or less suitable for the applications you have in mind for them. There are web sites dedicated entirely to this sort of question, and they'd be a much more appropriate place to find out about this subject rather than taking the opinions of a handful of people.

Que?

Hmmmmm. Nothing suspicious in the admin logs, and there are only two people who could delete log entries. Careful lads, there's treachery afoot. /loads musket.

The "who's online" page refreshes itself. If you have Opera, or Firefox with the "refresh every..." extension, you can make any page auto-refresh.

He sounds very sure of that. "Lack of evidence against is the same as proof that I am right" etc.

I would venture that man is as much a part of the "destiny and purpose" of the universe as anything else the universe contains. The answer as to whether or not that is by some unknown intention, I suspect, will not be found in a single book. As far as instinct in plants goes, this is something of a malapropism, since they lack the necessary physiological mechanisms.

Normally that sort of thing is reserved for extreme cases, like 'Intelligence', or people who have been banned for persistent idiocy. People probably don't want custom titles unless it is completely clear they are not being associated with such crowds. ExtraSense is more likely to get his name changed to ExtraDense or something though tbh...

Did you point out that even if this study was carried out (I hear people mentioning it from time to time - invariably the details change between such occasions), the fact that the plant reacted to a specific (and most likely unidentified) stimulus does not necessarily denote consciousness?

I usually have SFN open all day and all evening. Often the "who's online" page will be refreshing in the background so I can see what is going on while I work.

What would make a user deserve it?