Ben Banana

Exactly! The Nobel Peace prize is awarded to physicists who develop nuclear bombs to gain power and control over the world! EDIT: Architect, your posts remind me of Keep it up!

That reminds me of Douglas Engelbart. I really like that guy's flavor of reasoning upon social contribution, although that's just my personal preference. Source: http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-101931.html

With their mention of facial recognition in regards to this statement: "Human brains aren't hard-wired as anything. Are they? We develop. Don't we?", a statement which was intended to improve the depth of his evaluations (note how I added "Are they? Don't we?"), I hadn't realized we were actually going off topic. I assumed our relevance to the original question had persisted. I'm being quite normative about the quality of our discussion. I've been bummed out here, and it's affected my responsive behavior. Sorry. I smile at the low-quality ambient birdsong in classic video games too. Phone-ringing is meant to be loud and capture attention. It can annoy people who have no regards for the call, but people who expect information by a phone call will appreciate the ringing. The same goes for certain types of music, such as rap. And some people hate classical (I don't )... Although this is a roughly relevant matter, we've approached too provincially. If you would like a reason for the nature of my first response to this topic: a lot of its silliness is due to my inability to cover every damn issue I want to. I decided I would stimulate the original poster to respond aggressively as if I were offensive, and hopefully we could make a decent approach to this challenging question. I know that its not appreciated. I expected the reputation kicks. I consciously sacrificed my social stability for the condition of the latter discussion. I hope we progress into it soon. I ducked around and found this awesome sauce by Marvin Minksy: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/MusicMindMeaning.html Oh, and it does have a section which corresponds to our current matters; "Sentic Significance." I hope we discuss it more deeply than we have yet; but most of all, we should discuss the other parts. What do you think? Don't we need a fire? Are we just going to settle on thin speculations? Such an interesting topic deserves more fire! Has this discussion been satisfied yet? Will it ever be, and will that satisfaction count? I could call out hypocrisy here. I don't like to belittle people with hypocrisy, because all of us, we hypocrites, are all hypocritical; at least extending from our emotions. In hypo-criticism, I did not appropriately respond to you in my first response (neither did I in a few others); as I did not believe you had an appropriate basis for meaningful resolution. Tell me why I'm wrong. My problem remains: I don't believe we, in this topic, are approaching the question appropriately. Thanks.

Yes, that's obvious. But the question is not "Why can we tell between the sound of bongos and violins?" My point was to the contrary. I was illustrating how "liking music" has nothing to do with recognizing "sound waves," and how the process is not "hard wired." Clarification (italicized):

This is where philosophers bum out, sprawling with guesses. I would definitely make you shake your head if I said "Then unicorns exist!" But our issue is not logic. We use nothing all over the place: "My life's greatest work is worth nothing." I think such a question, "Can nothing exist?" is very sloppy, and so as "Can nothing not exist?" Clearly, this problem involves faulted semantics.

Awe... We should become like ancient China and India! I guess, I would like it if those aspects of development (disposition ) were more explicitly regarded, but not exactly how you said. I don't mean, like, sessions of meditation (as it sounds to me). An example: what might affect a child-student's performance? For instance, say a child's hands feel rough, and they don't like working with the dry paper. They would have more success if they didn't just have to deal with it. If the child was explicitly taught to think about why their hands are dry (maybe after playing outside?), and make a routine for mitigating, or preventing this, then they would conclude to wash their hands, and apply hand-lotion after playing. This is excellent. Learning to think about how to make small precautions for maximum productivity (appropriately responding to disadvantages, and building advantages) is one of those skills that isn't taught explicitly enough, which children need.

More than anything, its evidence that I was correct. You, as well as too-open-minded, are making a critical mistake in your analysis. Hopefully, if you read over my elaboration a second time, and compare it with the wikipage, you might see my point. Keyword: recognition. That is exactly what I was saying! Hence: I like derps. Music is lame. I've had a much more wholesome experience with derps. We'll have a nice day, and that's the problem.

Where does this claim come from? I thought: we know that infants aren't instantly capable of this. Clearly, you must recognize what a ball is, just as a face. Recognition involves association: sometimes, balls "bounce" (when?), and they're often "round" ! Hitler has a face, so why aren't we born to perceive "Nazis" ? I have no standards for vocabulary. I was noting your dull understanding of the topic. You didn't write much, of which I did read all. I understood you, but I'm teasing you for a reason. If you give me a better response, you'll have thought more sharply about it. I hate giving plain comments. I always try to have an involving discussion.

Well, that's false. Either way, what's our context here? We're "tampering" with what about our "own evolution" ? What kind of evolution? (Not regarding the active topic, but this statement you say.) I recommend you think about the statements of Eliminative Materialism. Regardless of your acceptance, a brief evaluation of it should enhance your handling of psychological concepts. There's a lot that's wrong with this idea.

Human brains aren't hard-wired as anything. Are they? We develop. Don't we? Psh. I think sound rides boats! Its not a fish. Serious Note: Do you also conclude that you can tell-out a person's face from a lamp because "their light looks different?" I don't have so good of social skills. When I see a random wave, I always assume that person was waving at me. Then I shout "Hi!", and everyone suddenly gets quiet... and then starts laughing. I see many tendencies regarding your vocabulary. I like derps. Music is lame.

What about moo + quack?

First. What do you consider evolution to be, anyway?

Almost as much as everyone else.

Dangit!

What kind of sucky homework assignment is this?

Yes. Unfortunately. They don't have enough screen-stamps to display info accessories. But these inventor geniuses might develop such a miraculous technology in... I'm guessing roughly 8 years, don't you think? Incorrect. They need a Frisbee saucer, to throw in the park. And they should read some books too. Books are a necessity! Crazy Fact: Did you know that touch screens don't have pointer-mice? Therefore, some say that mouse-over tips are invalid on touch screens. I know, it defies almost all logic. Who would think that, idiots? Oh and, I just want you to know that Steve Jobs, that guy who designed all of the micro potato-chips inside your iPad, was a crazy smart genius! He invented electricity, and Albert Einstein got the idea for quantum physics from him.

If you're using Apache HTTP Server (you probably are), I think this should help: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/configuring.html The contents are hard to navigate... but that's all I've got. Sorry I cannot be of more help.

Definitely something that Jesus doesn't have. That's just illogical... well, if you want to think about it... but I hope I'm not discriminating (thinking is sometimes sacrilegious, you know). - Cheers (grape soda!) Edit: A few might be going nuts over my previous words, but I have an honest point. Although I love everyone; I could put it in a better way, but the rudeness fantastically encapsulates my implicit point in swaddling irony... so I kind of like it. (don't argue. I love you because I said so)

Doesn't the mouse position only update when you touch the screen? Regardless of that, this is still a pretty ... bad question. Sorry.

I laughed at this, but... bleh.

He means it will be a massive glob of stars. That's like a sphere. Yes. Where's the misunderstanding? Well... 4 billion years anyway. With concerns towards humanity, we could become extinct in just a matter of millennia.