What to Know About the Bird Flu Outbreak More than 15 million chickens and turkeys from infected commercial and backyard flocks in 19 states have been killed, officials said.
The virus, Eurasian H5N1, is closely related to an Asian strain that has infected hundreds of people since 2003, mostly those who had worked with infected poultry. Its prevalence in the United States is not unexpected, with outbreaks previously reported in Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
The risk to humans is very low, said Ron Kean, a faculty associate and extension specialist in the University of Wisconsin at Madison department of animal and dairy sciences.
âItâs not impossible for humans to get this virus, but itâs been pretty rare,â Professor Kean said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it had been monitoring people in the United States who were exposed to infected poultry and other birds. So far, no cases of H5N1 infection have been found among them, the C.D.C. said.
Wait. Now I'm being drawn into this by reasons of insanity. You mean all this time I have been driving old beaters when I could have been enjoying days of the new, payments deferred? Plus I still can believe on/in a/the God of my own manufacture in the dwelling of material expediency? whew...I almost can't understand that question myself! Lol fascinating discussion, gentlemen.
my biggest problem? i'm living in someone else's simulation because waffling profundity
Does that simulation at least have profound waffles?
Hey man when you've got waffles you have to have butter and syrup. Just the real stuff though. Preservatives are highly overated and don't last very long at all. It's like a toast of time, which however ironic if also an illusion, does in fact fleet...
Wait. Now I'm being drawn into this by reasons of insanity. You mean all this time I have been driving old beaters when I could have been enjoying days of the new, payments deferred? Plus I still can believe on/in a/the God of my own manufacture in the dwelling of material expediency? whew...I almost can't understand that question myself! Lol
fascinating discussion, gentlemen.
Don't you change a thing OV, you are onto something.
Power to the peep-hole baby! Lol It's amazing what one might see by peering into the future...
Wait. Now I'm being drawn into this by reasons of insanity. You mean all this time I have been driving old beaters when I could have been enjoying days of the new, payments deferred? Plus I still can believe on/in a/the God of my own manufacture in the dwelling of material expediency? whew...I almost can't understand that question myself! Lol
fascinating discussion, gentlemen.
my biggest problem?
i'm living someone else's simulation
waffling profundity
Hey man when you've got waffles you have to have butter and syrup. Just the real stuff though. Preservatives are highly overated and don't last very long at all. It's like a toast of time, which however ironic if also an illusion, does in fact fleet...
Wait. Now I'm being drawn into this by reasons of insanity. You mean all this time I have been driving old beaters when I could have been enjoying days of the new, payments deferred? Plus I still can believe on/in a/the God of my own manufacture in the dwelling of material expediency? whew...I almost can't understand that question myself! Lol
fascinating discussion, gentlemen.
Don't you change a thing OV, you are onto something.
Wait. Now I'm being drawn into this by reasons of insanity. You mean all this time I have been driving old beaters when I could have been enjoying days of the new, payments deferred? Plus I still can believe on/in a/the God of my own manufacture in the dwelling of material expediency? whew...I almost can't understand that question myself! Lol
I'd say, both approaches show hubris when they negate any validity of an 'other' standpoint.
R_P wrote: "That would require nature to have agency or teleology. It probably has neither."
While you, Lazy8 made your argument based on one subset of the inclusive logic statement (i.e. teleology), you forgot the other set of 'agency' in your reasoning.
I didn't forget, I assumed the critique (which applies to both concepts) was obvious, but I'll spell it out and expand.
Assuming some phenomenon is a result of agency (without evidence) tells us nothing about the agent, tho historically those assigning agency always seem to know the goals of the agent. And while the rest of us can't interrogate that agent to verify those goals they alwaysâsurprise!âmatch the goals of the person who reveals them.
Of course the limits of that knowledge appear from time to time; at that point the agent becomes mysterious and unfathomable to the mere mind of mortal man.
But if you've got evidence of agency-directed action in the universe by all means spell it out. Humanity has been waiting for that big reveal since we left the trees, but maybe you've got something all the rest of us missed.
On SH: Is everything an illusory simulation? Was the world created by a non-physical force that we can communicate with and possibly influence with our minds, thereby participating in the creation of our own reality? These are the grandiose existential questions central to this documentary, which introduces viewers to the concept of the Simulation Hypothesis. Teasing that there are cutting edge physics experiments that imply Simulation Hypothesis could be true, the film begins by reviewing two primary philosophies regarding the nature of life: materialism and idealism. First introduced by Democritus, materialism credits the atom as the basis for all reality, making consciousness the result of a material process. Plato, on the other hand, believed it is the mind itself that gives way to matter; therefore reality is borne from ideas. The Simulation Hypothesis, which the filmmakers parallel very heavily against the hit sci-fi movie The Matrix, argues that matter and ideas are the result of a complex digital simulation, something akin to a video game. Theoretical physicists make their case for a programmable universe, positing that there is evidence of computer code to be found in nature and we are, put simply, expressions of a code. Are we ourselves composed of binary strings of 0s and 1s? Could it be that subatomic particles are nature's answer to the bits and pixels that digital worlds are composed of? Though dense in scientific jargon, there is an underlying creationist belief to Simulation Hypothesis - if, in fact, the world is a program, someone must have written it. But who, or what? The film suggests that humans have an innate mental connection back to this universal programmer through the subconscious. The Simulation Hypothesis is a thought provoking exploration of the nature of our existence, playing into the universal curiosity of how and why we came to be. Relying heavily on footage from famous movies, animated models, and the occasional interview to illustrate the concepts being presented, this episode takes viewers to the intersection of theology and science in a way that is equal parts educational and fantastical.
Sorry for that lengthy piece.
Say we live in a simulation. So what?
Does it have any implications for us at all? Any guide to human behavior? Does it mean I don't need to make a car payment, or that I should skip lunch, or that having a horse step on my foot doesn't hurt?
A being sophisticated enough to simulate the universe in infinitely fine detail can communicate with us any time it wants to, and only when it wants to. What would it tell us, and what would be the point in doing so? We're virtual. It's not like we're going to answer a question it doesn't already know the answer to. It owes us nothing, we owe it nothing, and all we have is imaginary anyway. This is a pointless line of inquiry.
Wait. Now I'm being drawn into this by reasons of insanity. You mean all this time I have been driving old beaters when I could have been enjoying days of the new, payments deferred? Plus I still can believe on/in a/the God of my own manufacture in the dwelling of material expediency? whew...I almost can't understand that question myself! Lol
I'd say, both approaches show hubris when they negate any validity of an 'other' standpoint.
R_P wrote: "That would require nature to have agency or teleology. It probably has neither."
While you, Lazy8 made your argument based on one subset of the inclusive logic statement (i.e. teleology), you forgot the other set of 'agency' in your reasoning.
I didn't forget, I assumed the critique (which applies to both concepts) was obvious, but I'll spell it out and expand.
Assuming some phenomenon is a result of agency (without evidence) tells us nothing about the agent, tho historically those assigning agency always seem to know the goals of the agent. And while the rest of us can't interrogate that agent to verify those goals they always—surprise!—match the goals of the person who reveals them.
Of course the limits of that knowledge appear from time to time; at that point the agent becomes mysterious and unfathomable to the mere mind of mortal man.
But if you've got evidence of agency-directed action in the universe by all means spell it out. Humanity has been waiting for that big reveal since we left the trees, but maybe you've got something all the rest of us missed.
On SH: Is everything an illusory simulation? Was the world created by a non-physical force that we can communicate with and possibly influence with our minds, thereby participating in the creation of our own reality? These are the grandiose existential questions central to this documentary, which introduces viewers to the concept of the Simulation Hypothesis. Teasing that there are cutting edge physics experiments that imply Simulation Hypothesis could be true, the film begins by reviewing two primary philosophies regarding the nature of life: materialism and idealism. First introduced by Democritus, materialism credits the atom as the basis for all reality, making consciousness the result of a material process. Plato, on the other hand, believed it is the mind itself that gives way to matter; therefore reality is borne from ideas. The Simulation Hypothesis, which the filmmakers parallel very heavily against the hit sci-fi movie The Matrix, argues that matter and ideas are the result of a complex digital simulation, something akin to a video game. Theoretical physicists make their case for a programmable universe, positing that there is evidence of computer code to be found in nature and we are, put simply, expressions of a code. Are we ourselves composed of binary strings of 0s and 1s? Could it be that subatomic particles are nature's answer to the bits and pixels that digital worlds are composed of? Though dense in scientific jargon, there is an underlying creationist belief to Simulation Hypothesis - if, in fact, the world is a program, someone must have written it. But who, or what? The film suggests that humans have an innate mental connection back to this universal programmer through the subconscious. The Simulation Hypothesis is a thought provoking exploration of the nature of our existence, playing into the universal curiosity of how and why we came to be. Relying heavily on footage from famous movies, animated models, and the occasional interview to illustrate the concepts being presented, this episode takes viewers to the intersection of theology and science in a way that is equal parts educational and fantastical.
Sorry for that lengthy piece.
Say we live in a simulation. So what?
Does it have any implications for us at all? Any guide to human behavior? Does it mean I don't need to make a car payment, or that I should skip lunch, or that having a horse step on my foot doesn't hurt?
A being sophisticated enough to simulate the universe in infinitely fine detail can communicate with us any time it wants to, and only when it wants to. What would it tell us, and what would be the point in doing so? We're virtual. It's not like we're going to answer a question it doesn't already know the answer to. It owes us nothing, we owe it nothing, and all we have is imaginary anyway. This is a pointless line of inquiry.
With every advancement of our human understanding of nature (i.e. evolution of science), there are new arguments added to the controversies surrounding (Aristotelian) agency or teleology in nature. Philosophy keeping up with scientific findings seems only 'natural'.
Assigning any negative probability here seems mechanistic to me, and self-congratulating.
New arguments but never any new evidence.
The temptation to anthropomorphize natural phenomena is that it gives you a way to predict the behavior of a complex system without understanding all its mechanisms. This is as old as humanity—the volcano erupts because it's angry!—and keeps getting fresh adherents.
The problem with a teleological approach ((understanding a phenomenon by the purpose it serves rather than its how it works) is that
1. it assumes it has a purpose and 2. we know what it is.
Neither has any justification beyond our own brains' primitive need to recognize patterns. If you're concerned about ego interfering with reasoning which approach shows more hubris?
Wondering if it isn't time for a major cull on this planet.
When major pan/epidemics occur I wonder, too, if nature isn't about to restore balance and harmony on the planet.
That would require nature to have agency or teleology. It probably has neither.
With every advancement of our human understanding of nature (i.e. evolution of science), there are new arguments added to the controversies surrounding (Aristotelian) agency or teleology in nature. Philosophy keeping up with scientific findings seems only 'natural'.
Assigning any negative probability here seems mechanistic to me, and self-congratulating.
