If there were insect jazz musicians, would they have a jive-mind?
I was listening to some music recently with mplayer, which has nice keys to increase/decrease the tempo of music, naturally shifting the tone. It occurred to me to shift the tempo when the notes in the main theme changed so the effective tone would always be the same, and just the tempo would change. I failed at this, partly because the degree of shift is not ideal to do tone matching, but the effects were interesting. If it were not for background voices, it would be a demonstration of exchangability of tone and rhythm in information preservation.
See my bookshelf as it is now. It's 1.1 megs though, so try not to do it over dialup.
I recently pissed off someone with atrocious spelling and grammar by commenting that their post hurt my eyes. They raised a bit of a stink. I am not at all ashamed. Oversensitive people suck. If any of you want to correct my grammar or spelling, drop me a note or a comment and I'll fix it (unless it's intentionally the way it is for some reason).
Synthesised from two recent conversations in radically different forii, I think one of my disagreements with secular humanism is the reason I oppose religion -- the secular humanist opposes it because and where they see it as creating harm in the world through its effects. I oppose it simply and solely because I think that it promotes ideas that are false/delusional. I find the arguments from lifestyle harm to be completely unmoving because they don't touch on my values. If I felt that a religion were true and accepted its moral framework as my own, I would be a theocrat if the religion seemed to ask me to, and otherwise be unashamed to use the values it contains to every practical effect relevant, regardless of other notions of harm. This would be a great leap from where I am now, given that I feel that value choices are not prescribed by the nature of things (even *if* one might be able to put them into a game theory, this is descriptive, not prescriptive). However, truth, whatever notions I might fit into it, as I see it now takes priority over all other concerns of happiness. I believe that this places me outside of the realm of humanism proper, in that I am placing an abstract philosophical position over the needs and concerns of the here and now. Humanism as I understand it is opposed to principle. I think that I have generally gotten along better with the fundamentalists (and have had a better position to intellectually spar with them) because I think in terms of principle, even though the actual principles I use differ from theirs. Any humanists out there who care to disagree with me on how I understand humanism are of course welcome to speak up here.