I see what you mean. But a propagandist aims to do more than get people to agree with him; he wants to make you do something, or go along with something. And surely it's also about the simplicity of the communication, its rhetorical, sloganeering nature? — jamalrob
Anyway, I'm not going to fight hard for the "neutral" definition. It just seems to work for the things I commonly regard as propaganda. — jamalrob
Propaganda is always one-sided — jamalrob
I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support. — jamalrob
And the reason why the information theoretic framework has become so exciting is that when Shannon information is paired with Gibbs entropy, the two mathematical structures are dual — apokrisis
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit." — 180 Proof
Tell us the zoom level at which "information" plays a role in genetics. Describe what role it plays. — Daemon
Try DNA. I say DNA works through biology, chemistry and physics. Chemical reactions taking place in living organisms, which could be described in terms of electron shells and all that. — Daemon
Talking about information helps us understand the process, but it's not required when describing the process. — Daemon
The "information" part is something in our minds, it's extrinsic to the thing we are describing. — Daemon
Whereas I'd say your approach is analogous to looking at a piece of burned toast and saying "there is the face of Jesus Christ". — Daemon
The interpretation of the marks in both cases is a mental activity. Christ is not in the toast, he's in your mind. — Daemon
The present discussion is already littered with very straightforward examples of what I mean.
In a digital computer the work is done by electrical currents, microscopic bumps and depressions on disks, and so on. When you've described this electrical and mechanical process, there isn't anything left for "information" to do.
In genetics the work is done by nucleic acids and so on, and not by "information".
In our brains the work is done by electrochemical impulses, ion exchanges and so on, and not by "information". — Daemon
I know people constantly use the term, but I've yet to see an example where "information" does any work. — Daemon
Can you give an example where information does work? — Daemon
All theories have limitations. — EugeneW
So here's Count Tim using "meaning" in a way that doesn't explain anything new, in much the same way people misuse "information". When you've said "some chemicals have the same effects as neurotransmitters" you've said it all. The "meaning" part doesn't have any work to do. — Daemon
In general relativity, the Earth [becould[/b] be considered the center of the universe. Like the Sun or the center of the galaxy. Motion is relative. — EugeneW
So you're referring to a theoretical state that cannot be achieved and cannot be measured? — Xtrix
The level of state intervention involved in the economy is enormous. So my point is this: whatever success you point to, why not attribute it to the state? Why is it "capitalism" that accounts for this so-called "efficiency" of production and distribution? — Xtrix
In this case, nearly every country on earth is capitalist, including Asian and African nations. Saudi Arabia and Sweden and Japan and Gabon and Belize are capitalist in this sense. But clearly that's not the entire story -- it just points to how business is generally run (by owners). In order for the private ownership and private profit to exist, it needs the assistance of the state. — Xtrix
It just so happens that the state is now the lapdog of wealth, and wealth is generated in the main from business, particularly the corporate world, and particularly the financial sector of the corporate world. So what I want to see change, therefore, is the concentration of power in the hands of the owner class (the capitalists), and more in the hands of the community. We don't sacrifice productivity or efficiency by doing so. — Xtrix
That depends on your attitude towards the theory. Every law we have can be said to be optimal, perfect and rational in its domain of applicability. — EugeneW
But it's also 1. not necessary to understand genetics and 2. not an element of the process. — Daemon
That's a description of what actually happens. If you told the alien all that stuff, you wouldn't then need to to talk about "instructions" or "information". — Daemon
My assertion is that it's being used in such a way that it doesn't explain anything. The particle physics and the chemistry levels do each explain something, but the Informationists are saying it's information that is doing the work in both cases. — Daemon
All this is fine, the problem arises when the suboptimal, imperfect and/or irrational heuristic is taken to be the optimal, perfect and rational explanation and description of the world. — Daemon
If you are among those who think information plays some role in addition to what the electrochemical processes do, please explain what it is. — Daemon
How (1) are we defining capitalist? — Xtrix
Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation. — Xtrix
And (2), how are we measuring efficiency? — Xtrix
It's just too broad to talk about. We can't possibly say that "capitalist countries are more efficient" -- because we haven't the slightest idea what that means. China is productive and efficient, outpacing the US in many ways (including GDP) the last few years. They're without a doubt a communist country, but a mixed economy as well. Is their efficiency due to their "capitalist" parts? — Xtrix
You're the fourth person I've asked in this discussion. The other three have simply ignored the question. I think that's because they don't have an answer. Can you do any better? — Daemon
But if you don't define it, then you're not talking about anything. — Xtrix
So far as I can see, there are no capitalist economies in the sense of "free market capitalism." — Xtrix
I see no evidence that capitalist economies have solved problems better than others, nor are more productive, nor are more efficient. — Xtrix
Sure, if we attribute everything to "capitalism" that's positive, then you're stating a truism. — Xtrix
I think co-ops are very efficient. — Xtrix
How do you calculate the necessary amount of punishment? — Average
We can't talk about alternatives to something we can't define. Your definition of "efficient means of solving extremely complex problems" is inadequate, and I don't agree with it. — Xtrix
Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation.
If you look at how corporations are organized and governed -- with a few people on top (shareholders, board of directors, CEO) making all the important decisions, and everyone else living with those decisions and taking orders -- then it's easy to point to alternatives: worker co-ops. Workers owning and running their own business. — Xtrix
I don’t think that biology is what makes someone “human”. — Average
Theories of biological humanity have been used by some of the most nefarious forces in history to justify their atrocities. — Average
But I also don’t think that it’s a good idea to be merciful to someone that would not extend that same mercy to you. — Average
Given the chance they would probably butcher you just as quickly as their other victims regardless of your humanistic or humanitarian ideas. — Average
Maybe it has more to do with the arbitrary nature of the crime and the fact that such behavior is unwarranted. Under this revised metric it would not be the simple fact that the serial killers are predators but it would instead be the fact that they are hunting people that haven’t done anything to warrant the death sentence. — Average
I don’t think so. — Average
The US is already savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal in my book and has been for a long time. One look at the CIA and it’s track record should be enough to prove that. — Average
I think I would base it on who is the predator and who is the prey. Otherwise I would be forced to conclude that serial killers are innocent and their victims are guilty. — Average
And also the shaper of human thought, feeling, and action. Christianity is an expression of thought, feeling, and action as well -- and vice versa. — Xtrix
Systems of beliefs and values shape how we interpret the world and ourselves; these are worldviews, paradigms, perspectives. To argue that nihilism or capitalism is simply an expression of "human nature" either isn't claiming much (since many things may be considered an expression of human nature), or is claiming too much (namely, that it is inevitable, since human beings are primarily motivated by x, where x can be selfishness, greed, personal gain, etc.) The former is a truism, the latter is unjustified (in my view). — Xtrix
Do you mean the basic human dignity of the serial killer? — Average
If you know anything about the 13th amendment then you know that slavery is acceptable under the constitution as a form of punishment. — Average
I wish you would clearly state your precise meaning when you use words like barbarizing because historically concepts like civilization and barbarism have been used to justify atrocities. — Average
The practice I’m condemning is the destruction of innocent life and not the punishment of the guilty. — Average
But so do cupcakes. Are cupcakes therefore part of human nature? — Xtrix
I would argue that this only constrains what the state does in front of everyone but not what it does in secret. — Average
I don’t have as much faith as you do in statistics. I believe that things like courts and prisons are actually weapons in the hands of a ruling class. Meaning that they are used not for the sake of “justice” but instead to defend their supremacy — Average
Of course this isn’t what I’m advocating. But let’s discuss the question in hypothetical terms. If it could be proven that no one would be wrongfully convicted would you have a problem with the policy I’m proposing? If so how would you argue against it? — Average
I hear the argument a lot that capitalism is an extension of human nature, or best reflects human nature -- and this betrays a rather cynical view of human beings, I think. I don't agree with it. I think this too is itself a result of capitalism. — Xtrix
The state doesn’t need permission to do anything. Historically It does whatever it wants. — Average
As far as false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power go you could make the same argument against execution or any form of punishment. — Average
What do you mean exactly by “in the other direction”? — Average
I’m on board with torturing them mercilessly. Not because I’m some kind of sadist but because I think it would help deter others from engaging in similar behavior as well as being a form of justice — Average
Would you consider it evil if those “others” were serial killers? — Average
At what point does suffering become gratuitous? I’m assuming you mean uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted and not given or done free of charge. — Average
Basically it says the beginning in time happens in series. After us a next beginning and thereafter again. And before us. Ad infinitum. On that, eternal and infinite 4D space the 3D branes expand in two pieces of infinite bulk connected by a thin wormhole. The branes emerging backfire to their source (the wormhole) and inform when the next two universes (branes) can be inflated into reality (from virtuality). — EugeneW