Post Funny Videos

[Munch]

cgi kids movies just all look the same to me these days. The problem with it is they developed the detailing and smoothness so much, they all just look the same, at least when they were growing as an art form seemed they had different styles.

I can look at something like snow white, beauty and the beast, howls moving castle, and 101 dalmatians and the art style is unique enough to pop out. Modern cgi movies, not so much, because its less now about artists applying their art styles to paper, and now just about making it look good.

[Baruch]

cgi kids movies just all look the same to me these days. The problem with it is they developed the detailing and smoothness so much, they all just look the same, at least when they were growing as an art form seemed they had different styles.

I can look at something like snow white, beauty and the beast, howls moving castle, and 101 dalmatians and the art style is unique enough to pop out. Modern cgi movies, not so much, because its less now about artists applying their art styles to paper, and now just about making it look good.

Asian or Asian influenced cartoons (which go back to the 30s) are influenced by watercolor art.

[Sal1981]

(...)

Physics only deals with simple artificial problems, chosen by people ... we arrange a physical simplicity, that we can write simple equations to calculate simple results to compare measurements with.  The people themselves are beyond any exact scientific description .. ghost in the machine aka an oracle (in terms of Turing machines).  Which is to say, reductionism ... arguing from atoms up to a person, is impossible to do in practice.

Just because something is unknown at present, doesn't mean it is always unknown - I don't think it is impossible to "argue" from atoms up to a person, just that's a monumental task.

As for reductionism, I don't see how using that process of thought invalidates it. It's merely taking things apart, viewing the component parts, and how they function, to try to "re-build" the thing to see how it functions as a whole.

The human produces the physics, the physics doesn't produce the human (other than god like hand waving that would make a theologian blush).  We arrange things to be comprehensible, and then claim that everything is comprehensible from that narrow view (arguing from a part of an elephant in the dark).  A semi-empirical circular argument.

What does that even mean? Either an argument is circular or it is not, I fail to see how anything can be in part circular.

And we got away from the idea that since a computer can describe any function, we can easily produce a simulation where things fall up.  What you are claiming is that physical things can not produce non-physical results, but they obviously can (if we accept that the origin is physical in the first place).  I can use software to simulate any disallowed paradox ... not just a simple violation of gravity.  Computers produce inconsistent results all the time.  And people accept this, because garbage in, garbage out.  Well there really isn't a ghost in the machine, there are in fact men/women who produce the machine and the software ... and they are indirectly present.

Only insofar as the internal logic is consistent would things fall upwards, otherwise you'll get a run-time error.

The constituent parts all the way from a human down to single atoms is reducible to a wide range of functions, this is reductionism, but the whole doesn't have the same function as the parts, this is well known. These emergent properties of a whole from the parts isn't some nebulous thing arising ex nihilo, it's simple rules evolving into complex materia.

[pr126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4WGQmWcrbs

[Unbeliever]

Damn, them was some tough motherfuckers! 

[pr126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ5YU_spBw0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx_G2a2hL6U

[Unbeliever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94_omZ2RnfI

[Baruch]

Damn, them was some tough motherfuckers! 

Nobody messes with Super Chicken Little Man (my work nickname) ... not even Family Guy!

[Baruch]

Just because something is unknown at present, doesn't mean it is always unknown - I don't think it is impossible to "argue" from atoms up to a person, just that's a monumental task.

As for reductionism, I don't see how using that process of thought invalidates it. It's merely taking things apart, viewing the component parts, and how they function, to try to "re-build" the thing to see how it functions as a whole.
What does that even mean? Either an argument is circular or it is not, I fail to see how anything can be in part circular.
Only insofar as the internal logic is consistent would things fall upwards, otherwise you'll get a run-time error.

The constituent parts all the way from a human down to single atoms is reducible to a wide range of functions, this is reductionism, but the whole doesn't have the same function as the parts, this is well known. These emergent properties of a whole from the parts isn't some nebulous thing arising ex nihilo, it's simple rules evolving into complex materia.

We are talking past each other.  This was originally in reference to "actual simulations" not the notion that reality is a "simulation" was proposed by Drew_2017.

Well the dictionary is a complex web, more complicated than circular, but invalid for the same reasons why a circular argument is invalid.  Jargon, especially math jargon, is an attempt to escape from this.

[pr126]

40 years ago this was a comedy. Today, not so much.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

[pr126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW63_5tLp6o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SkkXYWhfus

[Baruch]

This is why nobody should mess with the US, or invite us to parties!

[Shiranu]

Pretty accurate about how out-of-touch advertisers are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG_i7oWzTyU

[Baruch]

My Baby Boom generation was treated to the same fantasy, only 20th century style.  It may be a stereotype, but 21st century youth is ... a one time thing more or less, same as any other youth in any other century.

Advertisers aren't out of touch, they are practicing brain washing you, just as the politicians are doing (political marketing).  They will be successful getting you to believe that your collective conformity equals individual rebellion.  Freud's nephew said so.

[Hydra009]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z-PH3H09mQ