They’re talking about the visions of sci-fi authors, filmmakers, and artists. The tech Bros are the ones being drawn towards those artists’ visions.
Formerly /u/Zalack on Reddit.e
Also Zalack@kbin.social
They’re talking about the visions of sci-fi authors, filmmakers, and artists. The tech Bros are the ones being drawn towards those artists’ visions.
I don’t think a medical-focused Trek show would have to take place during war time. Medical Ethics in general is ripe for the sort of show Trek lends itself to.
That’s a really interesting perspective I didn’t think I’ve seen before. Thanks for posting.
I think the short episode count has also forced them to make some episodes ensemble episodes when they would have been better served being more focused.
For instance, the musical episode really suffered from spotlighting so many characters rather than picking one character and making them the protagonist of the musical. My SO pointed out that it was just a string of “I want” songs (the song that comes in the first act where the character sets out their deepest desire) rather than an actual story. The episode really should have been about La’an or Uhura and constructed a full narrative around them.
I actually think the radio signal is an apt comparison. Let’s say someone was trying to argue that the signal itself was a fundamental force.
Well then you could make the argument that if you pour a drink into it, the water shorts the electronics and the signal stops playing as the electromagnetic force stops working on the pieces of the radio. This would lead you to believe, through the same logic in my post, that the signal itself is not a fundamental force, but is somehow created through the electromagnetic force interacting with the components, which… It is! The observer might not understand how the signal worked, but they could rule it out as being its own discreet thing.
In the same way, we might not know exactly how our brain produces consciousness, but because the components we can see must be involved, it isn’t a discreet phenomenon. Fundamental forces can’t have parts or components, they must be completely discreet.
Your example is a really really good one.
At a sketch:
We know that when the brain chemistry is disrupted, our consciousness is disrupted
You can test this yourself. Drink some alcohol and your consciousness will be disrupted. Similarly I am on Gabapentin for nerve pain, which works by inhibiting the electrical signals my nerves use to fire, and in turn makes me groggy.
While we don’t know exactly how consciousness works, we have a VERY good understanding of chemistry, which is to say, the strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism (fundamental forces). Literally millions of repeatable experiments that have validated these forces exist and we understand the way they behave.
Drugs like Gabapentin and Alcohol interact with our brain using these forces.
If the interaction of these forces being disrupted disrupts our consciousness, it’s reasonable to conclude that our consciousness is built on top of, or is an emergent property of, these forces’ interactions.
If our consciousness is made up of these forces, then it cannot be a fundamental force as, by definition, fundamental forces must be the basic building blocks of physics and not derived from other forces.
There are no real assumptions here. It’s all a line of logical reasoning based on observations you can do yourself.
Why would you assume consciousness is a fundamental force rather than an emergent property of complex systems built on the forces?
My point was that Star Wars has been tied to the same characters for personal and business reasons, not inherently creative ones defined by the setting. The difference IMO is mostly down to who the creators and executives involved in the process of each IP have been, not the actual merits of the respective IP’s worlds.
If Gene Roddenberry has decided that Next Generation had to be about Kirk and his crew, and then Paramount also mandated all it’s other Star Trek projects to be about TOS crew, we’d be having the same discussions about “why can’t Start Trek get away from the original series?” even though it has nothing to do with the setting.
No offense meant, because you raise a lot of good points on why Star Trek works as a setting, but I fundamentally disagree with the Star Wars take here. Historically, Star Wars has centered around the Skywalker saga for Personal (George Lucas) and Business (Disney) reasons, not creative ones.
Star Wars offers an excellent setting with a framework to discuss ethics and morality baked directly into the universe. Stories like Knights of the Old Republic have shown that you can get away from the main Saga and still tell an engaging story rooted in the universe that Saga created. Tons of old Legends content didn’t tie directly into the original films and were excellent.
Andor has also shown that it’s also just that bad writing is what leads to IP burnout. I couldn’t finish Book of Boba Fett or Mandalorian season 3, but have watched Andor 3 times.
I’m not saying there aren’t downsides, just that it isn’t a totally crazy strategy.
You’re being sarcastic but even small fees immediately weed out a ton of cruft.
I work in the film industry and can say, with certainty, that TNG was not shot with the same consideration.
Television back then knew it was being mastered for SDTV and the artists had a good idea of what it meant they could get away with compared to something that would be screened in 35mm. Final screening medium has always been the most important consideration, not capture medium.
Audiences have also gotten less forgiving of visual quality and less willing to suspend disbelief as the bar for quality has steadily risen. It means that shows are both working on higher definition target mediums and under more scrutiny than ever.
Like, I love TNG but go watch and tell me that it looks half as good as SNW.
Lol, Texas and Florida are doing a good enough job of knocking themselves down without help from me.
Except in a true free market zoning laws wouldn’t keep adorable, high density housing from being constructed to artificially boost housing prices.
Other than that I agree with you.
I agree with the other poster that you need to define what you even mean when you say free will. IMO, strict determinism is not incompatible with free will. It only provides the mechanism. I posted this in another thread where this came up:
The implications of quantum mechanics just reframes what it means to not have free will.
In classical physics, given the exact same setup you make the exact same choice every time.
In Quantum mechanics, given the same exact setup, you make the same choice some percentage of the time.
One is you being an automaton while the other is you being a flipped coin. Neither of those really feel like free will.
Except.
We are looking at this through an implied assumption that the brain is some mechanism, separate from “us”, which we are forced to think “through”. That the mechanisms of the brain are somehow distorting or restricting what the underlying self can do.
But there is no deeper “self”. We are the brain. We are the chemical cascade bouncing around through the neurons. We are the kinetic billiard balls of classical physics and the probability curves of quantum mechanics. It doesn’t matter if the universe is deterministic and we would always have the same response to the same input or if it’s statistical and we just have a baked “likelihood” of that response.
The way we respond or the biases that inform that likelihood is still us making a choice, because we are that underlying mechanism. Whether it’s deterministic or not it’s just an implementation detail of free will, not a counterargument.
And often if you box yourself into an API before you start implementing, it comes out worse.
I always learn a lot about the problem space once I start coding, and use that knowledge to refine the API of my system as I work.
I actually don’t think that’s the case for languages. Most languages start out from a desire to do some specific thing better than other languages rather than do everything.
The cool thing about Voyager is that it has a record of information about Earth, etched in gold, with instructions on how to read the data it contains back.
Even once it powers down, it’s still on a mission. If millions of years from now intelligent alien life ever encounters it, they will know who we were and that we existed.
It’s our handprint on the cosmic wall.
I don’t know, there’s still a lot of needless hostility; it’s just around different topics.
Lemmy skews even more heavily left than Reddit and it’s still too small to attract organized political trolls, but topics like FOSS vs Paid open source vs closed source gets heated fast. Look at the Sync for Lemmy threads; it’s a mess in there.
So gamble? The only proven way to reliably make money on investing are things like index funds, which you will need a fair amount of starting capital to make a living off of.