Phi for All

You have to remember, this isn't Wikipedia and it isn't YouTube. This is a discussion site, and you should expect people to discuss what you post. Most members of SFN are intellectually incapable of tacitly reinforcing misinformation. If we keep our mouths shut, PEOPLE COULD DIE!

If I'm reading this correctly, I agree that our media is far too biased, but I don't think it's a problem of political leaning so much as trying to inform the public using a for-profit business model. If you want unbiased journalism, you need to remove that aspect. The media is playing to their audience in any way possible to get them to NOT change the channel. That's about as far away from informing the public as you can get without shutting the media down altogether. And the ACA is a classic example of media misinformation. Far too many people don't know that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing. They like the affordable care part, but if they don't like Obama they don't want Obamacare. I guess the big question is, if we were to go back to requiring broadcasters to set aside an hour every day for informing the public (without commercials), would people watch a dry, fact-based but compelling news show as avidly as they do the commercial, slanted and vividly misleading news shows now? Can the media regain the kind of trust we had with people like Murrow and Cronkite?

I read an interesting piece on (gasp!) Fox News about who stands to gain in a shutdown. This might actually help Boehner rid himself at least partially from his Tea Party extreme faction. The media loves this stuff too (advertising rates go up during disasters), and since the media is owned by the corporations who helped put the pols in office, it's not hard to see that connection. Well, not hard for me, but Fox missed it.

The argument is that the Affordable Care Act was passed into law three years ago. Extreme factions of the Republican party have tried 42 times now to overturn the law, and have failed each time. Threatening government shutdown by tying the ACA to a spending bill is NOT part of our democratic process, nor should it be. Many (sane) Republicans are admitting that shutting down the government is the ultimate admission of defeat for a politician. The extremists have not been able to use the system we have in place and are trying to circumvent the People's representative functions using blackmail. Yes, politicians are supposed to work together and we're currently seeing that the US has a big problem with that. But negotiations can't be done at this level when you have hostages being threatened with beheading. Meeting the demands of terrorists politicians willing to use such tactics MUST be deemed unacceptable or it's just going to keep happening.

! Moderator Note At the request of the OP, the title has been changed from "About Qualia" to "Brain vs Computer". If this is a problem, or significantly changes your responses, please PM me or another staff member.

I agree completely. Really? Is that all it takes? If the book says there's proof of life after death then that's all the proof I should need? Really?

Interestingly, Ike proposed a universal health plan that would have extended coverage to all Americans. He even set it up as a subsidy to cover private insurers, which was good market strategy at the time (remember, pre-Nixon health insurance was based on your age and the actuarial tables). The Senate leader (William F. Knowland, R-CA) said he couldn't fit it into the agenda, since they were already filibustering the proposed Atomic Energy bill.

Proof? I don't think there is even much supportive evidence, much less proof. Two renowned scientists out of a thousand renowned scientists is 0.2% The other 99.8% remain skeptical. Is that what this is about, did you join to promote a book?

They are out there all right. I was very glad to hear Chris Christie say that threatening to shut down the government should be anathema to any politician. Both parties are using conservatism for stupid, short-term reasons. I'd love to see a smart progressive Republican step up and defend the concept of affordable healthcare for every American because we deserve it. I'd vote for a Dwight Eisenhower tomorrow, in fact. I loved this Will McAvoy quote from the season finale of The Newsroom: I hope the hatred doesn't undo any good that comes from the ACA.

I guess I should be glad you didn't start ranting about OSHA since I brought them up too. Years into the program and you think we should scrap it after a Rep takes office in 2017?! "The more we scrap it, the more money that is saved" works for EVERYTHING, you know. Subsidies, military, etc. At what cost though? Me, I'd rather they just offered Medicare to everyone as an alternative insurance and let the market handle that one. But I'd rather do something than nothing, and I'm very concerned that all the resources we'll have spent will be for nothing if the GOP decides to treat the ACA like they do FEMA.

* sigh * And their arguments were NOT enough to keep the ACA from being reality. Honestly, debating the ACA's merits are not on topic, and I really resent your trying to hijack this thread. Thank you for this answer. Do you think by that time they'll have a fix they can make to the ACA that will make it "theirs" so they have an interest in helping administrate it? I don't think we can afford to scrub it and start from square zero again. And it would be worse if they treated it like they have FEMA and the EPA. Ditto, dude. Stay on topic.

Do you see the contradiction here? How do you know one is greater if you don't understand either of them? I was purposely responding vaguely to a purposely vague question. We're very good with patterns, whether looking at the whole or at its parts. Focusing on the parts helps with "how" and "what". If this is confusing to you, it's because you're trying to make science solve the "why" and that's more philosophy's purview. I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't be able to sustain our existence without understanding "the whole of life". All the other species are doing it. I don't think the conclusions were about made about the concept. What doesn't make sense is the way you're asking these questions. It's like some kind of passive/aggressive philosopher is asking vague questions and expecting precise answers. Sorry.

Unity+, if you're done pissing all around my question just to mark it up real good, could you please try to piss right on it instead? I'm sorry, I know we haven't had many good political venting threads lately, but again, I don't want this to be a catchall thread for unfocused frustration. Since the ACA is going to be here, and since there are a lot of experts who say it's a good first step, and since we need to make it work in order NOT to waste the resources we've already spent on it, can we trust Republicans in 2016 to do their best to help the country succeed in its administration?

You don't have your own theories (not on a science site where "theory" means a lot more than "something I've thought hard about"). You have your own opinion, and you wanted to hear other opinions first. And now you want to tell people their opinions are wrong and yours are right. Not playing that game.

Please, let's not key on the deficit here. I gave my parameters for the question. I never said the responsibility for the deficit lies with a single party and I conceded that both parties have to seek special interest money to get elected. Please don't lead this thread into a Dem/Rep standoff. My concerns are real. Obama and his predecessor (if he has one in 2016) will work very hard to make the ACA work. Can you tell me that a Republican administration would work as hard on it, seeing as how they hate it enough to threaten a shutdown?

Republicans have shown contempt for federal programs they think cuts into private sector earnings or makes the government bigger, like FEMA, OSHA, the EPA and others. Typically, they'll put a political appointee in charge who has no credentials for the job, or remove the program's ability to regulate, and then later point to how bloated and worthless the program is. They don't believe in them so they don't try to make them work (which they magically do when the Democrats take them back). Since Reagan, Republicans have been responsible for the biggest deficits as well, cutting taxes to make the deficits even bigger. They push spending where it means large private sector profits (aka war & crime) and when the Democrats gain the Executive branch, Republicans call for spending cuts in the kind of social programs that work best when funded publicly (aka health, recreation & welfare). Democrats certainly have their own special interests to satisfy, don't get me wrong. The cost of presidential elections for both parties was under $100M in 1976 and it's estimated that it will cost $5B in 2016. Someone has to pay the piper when you do business politics business politics business like this. Given that the GOP is willing to screw up US credit (again) to block the ACA, and what they've done historically with programs they don't believe in, can we trust them not to turn the ACA into yet another overfed beast they will then try to starve if a Bush or a Cruz or a Ryan gets elected? We're talking about a costly program that has a chance at being great if people who believe in it can help to make it work. We're also talking about a costly program that can cost a whole lot more and still fail if the Republicans are willing to screw it up on purpose (again) just to say "I told you so".

Which you don't, since you asked how we do, so how can you prove something you don't understand?

Is complexity that much of a burden?

Yes and no.

! Moderator Note Sorry, but our policy prohibits us from full deletion. We want members to trust that their time spent writing and responding won't get zapped. I can lock the thread though, and will do so now.

! Moderator Note Please use the quote and multiquote functions properly. Do NOT embed your replies in the quotes of others. It looks dishonest (though I'm sure you don't mean it that way) and it makes it very difficult to quote you back.

Are you referring to the fact that primates (including us) evolved from quadrupedal mammals, which evolved from small reptiles, all the way back to the first vertebrate fish? In that case, I'm pretty sure you're right. Or are you saying that humans (who are primates) couldn't have evolved our level of intelligence without somehow breeding with aliens? If that's the case, I really wish you'd take all the time you've put into watching those Pye videos and study some evolution instead. Please don't waste another minute; you owe it to yourself to study a subject before you look for alternatives to it.

If it's a design, it's likely aimed at foiling a bigger design. The one that keeps applying private business models where they're bound to either fail or be less efficient than publicly funded ones. Part of this design has made you forget that, in a democracy, WE are the government. If you feel "government-run" is synonymous with "inept", then you're really blaming yourself. But the pundits know we don't like to blame ourselves for anything, so they make it easy to point fingers. Another part of this design tells you that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for programs you don't benefit from, like welfare (if you're well employed) or education (if you have no children) or medical care (if you're healthier than many people you know) or public recreation (if you own your own pool or parkland). This design tells you that this tax money is needed elsewhere, and threatens to turn us into socialist/communist/anti-Americans. It makes us forget that we all benefit from being (and being around) smarter, healthier, well-adjusted and happier members of our society. Please, someone show me how this is NOT the cumulative effect of allowing corporate charters and special business interests to get out of hand. Corporations, since the time of our founding fathers, have been a source of both great pride and great consternation. Like the military, they serve a vital function in our society, but they MUST be kept in check if we're to balance all the parts of that society. We've let corporations become too powerful; they're pushing harmful, short-sighted laws, they're being allowed to govern themselves and that's just stupid. Corporations are NOT people.

I'd really like to see someone object to this without using the blatantly false memes about the government's inability to run successful programs and how all the good doctors will repatriate.

Here's part of the problem. The scientific method relies on evidence, not opinion. First there's all the testing that supports the skull being human (only). Then we have historical evidence to support that this was a case of hydrocephalus, which explains the skull naturally without invoking extraterrestrials. Science is willing to entertain doubt, but in this case it's not very entertaining, since nothing anomalous warrants more than the standard, skeptical grain of doubt.