You are not a f*cking DJ. You’re an overpaid, untalented, cake-throwing c*nt.

joker77

jtsuited wrote: »

...Greed is merely the desire to accumulate as much as we can. The only thing that stops a homo sapien from trying to get as much as possible is altruism. And altruism is a small part of our behaviour that really has more to do with the strengthening of social bonds (lots of survival benefit there). But it's merely a drop in the ocean of our profile which is mainly characterised by pure selfishness...

Altruism is a strange concept - very debatable as to whether it actually exists in humans. That's for another discussion probably.

As Baz said though - it's Monday morning, my brain hurts

old gregg

jtsuited wrote: »

sounds awesome Gregg. Fair play. I find anything that's sonically 'blurry' awesome with Xanax. A lot of the Krautrock stuff is that type of blurry to me. Also My Bloody Valentine. That type of vibe.

Who was playin in Berghain the night you were there?

It was a Touch music event and the headliner was Christian Fennesz. Pretty forgettable and he just sounded burned out to my ears with his chin stroking drones and Keith Richards riffs. Some of the music that came before and after was much fresher.


Sohrab from Tehran was the unknown who did a sublime ambient performance and made the night worthwhile. Hildur Guðnadóttir was excellent as usual.

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

I know it's cheesy to say, but we do need a Third Way. Many people sneer at the humanities and social sciences but tbh I feel they're more important now than ever as we try to figure out how to get the best from all these 'different but valid in their own way' ideologies.

I agree with you. Pragmatism needs to win out over the endorsement of any single ideology. But is it possible for a government to be pragmatic in this day and age?

jimi_t2

And next in the DJing forum, we discuss L'Etranger and other big words...


Wouldn't get this on EMI, thats for damn sure

jtsuited

haha you'd be surprised......Tack (think he posts here) seems to come up with a monthly off-the-wall thread about aliens or something and it always gets my mind racing.

jtsuited

joker77 wrote: »

Altruism is a strange concept - very debatable as to whether it actually exists in humans. That's for another discussion probably.

As Baz said though - it's Monday morning, my brain hurts

actually there was a great thing by Dawkins on the telly-box which pretty much explained the evolutionary advantage of altruism. Stunning stuff.

The more I read Dawkins' work, the more I get annoyed by people who are annoyed by him. Honestly, get stuck into The Ancestor's Tale or Climbing Mount Improbable and you'll see why.

To even put him face to face with a Southern baptist creationist in an argument is an insult to anybody with an IQ over 85. The guy's intellect is fcuking astounding.

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

actually there was a great thing by Dawkins on the telly-box which pretty much explained the evolutionary advantage of altruism. Stunning stuff.

The more I read Dawkins' work, the more I get annoyed by people who are annoyed by him. Honestly, get stuck into The Ancestor's Tale or Climbing Mount Improbable and you'll see why.

To even put him face to face with a Southern baptist creationist in an argument is an insult to anybody with an IQ over 85. The guy's intellect is fcuking astounding.

Ah but Darwin never knew about the banana argument:

Creationists = 1
Darwin = 0

Bet you got egg on your face now jt.

jtsuited

Android 666 wrote: »

Ah but Darwin never knew about the banana argument:

Creationists = 1
Darwin = 0

Bet you got egg on your face now jt.

haha, love it!! oh but look, a retort.

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

nyom nyom nyom

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

haha, love it!! oh but look, a retort.

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

nyom nyom nyom

Obviously the wild bananas were created to test our faith, just like dinosaur bones were. Your wicked words won't fool me…

jtsuited

Android 666 wrote: »

Obviously the wild bananas were created to test our faith, just like dinosaur bones were. Your wicked words won't fool me…

all joking aside, I have an uncle who is a baptist minister and has said with a straight face to me that carbon dating and dinosaur fossils are instruments to test our faith. needless to say I broke my hole laughing, and said that that statement was an insrument to test my own tolerance of idiocy.

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

all joking aside, I have an uncle who is a baptist minister and has said with a straight face to me that carbon dating and dinosaur fossils are instruments to test our faith. needless to say I broke my hole laughing, and said that that statement was an insrument to test my own tolerance of idiocy.

The scary thing is how much of a hold creationism has in America and its getting a whole worse with the rise of the republican nutjobs and what looks like a 2012 presidental race with Sarah fookin' Palin. Now she'd run a pragmatic government…

jtsuited

Android 666 wrote: »

The scary thing is how much of a hold creationism has in America and its getting a whole worse with the rise of the republican nutjobs and what looks like a 2012 presidental race with Sarah fookin' Palin. Now she'd run a pragmatic government…

Oh the lulz I get out of Palin. She's a Momma Grizzly remember!! Great thing is she's taken the phrase 'speaking as a mother' out of the lexicon of most sane people in the world, because it's normally followed up by something massively illogical, dumbfoundingly ignorant and slightly racist.

joker77

"Don't argue with a fool. The spectators can't tell the difference." - Charles j. Nalin

Android 666

joker77 wrote: »

"Don't argue with a fool. The spectators can't tell the difference." - Charles j. Nalin

‘Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again’ - George W. Bush

BaZmO*

joker77 wrote: »

"Don't argue with a fool. The spectators can't tell the difference." - Charles j. Nalin

Haha that's brilliant.

On the subject of Dawkins, I always used to wonder why he was vociferous when arguing with creations but having seen a documentary on Channel 4 that showed what a total bunch of nutbags they are, and just how aggressive they are towards him, it's totally understandable.

Has anybody ever noticed that the word Dawkins is a slightly more evolved version of the word Darwin?

joker77

Android 666 wrote: »

‘Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again’ - George W. Bush

Now watch my drive

joker77

As much as agree with what he has to say, Dawkins is on a bit of a crusade, and does lose face for trying to argue with imbeciles.

jtsuited

joker77 wrote: »

As much as agree with what he has to say, Dawkins is on a bit of a crusade, and does lose face for trying to argue with imbeciles.

to be fair to him (and he should probably explain this publicly), the guy absolutely brought us years forward in terms of genetics and evolutionary biology and then in his later years was exposed to the fact that even with his great work, most of the world believes in fairytales.
I think his greatest flaw is having too much of an expectation of people's intelligence. And tbh if he had a more realistic view, people would see him as even a more unlikeable arrogant character.

ianuss

Android 666 wrote: »

‘Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again’ - George W. Bush

One of my old history lecturers used to say that Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth. The amount of idiotic mumblings both he and his father came out with was just staggering.

jtsuited

the difference between his father and him was his father was an embittered nutbag, but his son was just plain thick (well that and an extra chromosome methinks).

joker77

jtsuited wrote: »

to be fair to him (and he should probably explain this publicly), the guy absolutely brought us years forward in terms of genetics and evolutionary biology and then in his later years was exposed to the fact that even with his great work, most of the world believes in fairytales.
I think his greatest flaw is having too much of an expectation of people's intelligence. And tbh if he had a more realistic view, people would see him as even a more unlikeable arrogant character.

You're probably dead right there, he has too much belief people will listen to reason.

I watched a couple of his interviews (with him as the interviewer), really enjoyed the Derren Brown one.

Must pick up some of this books - have to admit I've never read them, only listened to debate.

The thing about people's beliefs in fairytales though - why is it in a lot of peoples nature that they WANT to believe in these things? I've tried to reason it out, but can't. The closest I come to is that most people, after being fed a childhood of lies through childrens stories and makebelieve and fairytales (ok in fairness I know some of them are about teaching kids right and wrong, using their imagination to keep them hooked in etc), that when kids grow up (if we ever really do) and start to come to the realisation that they've been sold a bit lie - that some kind of mental self protection kicks it that causes them to keep believing

ianuss

It really is alarming to think that someone so mind numbingly stupid could become the so called 'leader of the free world'. History will not look favourably upon him.

Well, hopefully lessons have been learnt, and the bare requisite now for getting the job will be that you can hold a childrens book up the rigt way.

jtsuited

joker77 wrote: »

The thing about people's beliefs in fairytales though - why is it in a lot of peoples nature that they WANT to believe in these things? I've tried to reason it out, but can't. The closest I come to is that most people, after being fed a childhood of lies through childrens stories and makebelieve and fairytales (ok in fairness I know some of them are about teaching kids right and wrong, using their imagination to keep them hooked in etc), that when kids grow up (if we ever really do) and start to come to the realisation that they've been sold a bit lie - that some kind of mental self protection kicks it that causes them to keep believing

actually when Dawkins was on the Late Late about 4 years ago, he addressed this perfectly.
There is a part of our brains that will listen and believe without evidence. The reason for it's pretty simple. If you're a child and you can only believe in that which is demonstrable, you can't be told not to run out in front of traffic (unless you've seen somebody do it).
So part of our evolution is having this part of our mind which believes without evidence, and hence religion latches on to that part.

ianuss

joker77 wrote: »

The thing about people's beliefs in fairytales though - why is it in a lot of peoples nature that they WANT to believe in these things? I've tried to reason it out, but can't. The closest I come to is that most people, after being fed a childhood of lies through childrens stories and makebelieve and fairytales (ok in fairness I know some of them are about teaching kids right and wrong, using their imagination to keep them hooked in etc), that when kids grow up (if we ever really do) and start to come to the realisation that they've been sold a bit lie - that some kind of mental self protection kicks it that causes them to keep believing

Because the alternative is less palatable. ie, you die and that's it.

joker77

jtsuited wrote: »

actually when Dawkins was on the Late Late about 4 years ago, he addressed this perfectly.
There is a part of our brains that will listen and believe without evidence. The reason for it's pretty simple. If you're a child and you can only believe in that which is demonstrable, you can't be told not to run out in front of traffic (unless you've seen somebody do it).
So part of our evolution is having this part of our mind which believes without evidence, and hence religion latches on to that part.

A couple of points on this - first off - it sounds a bit simplistic, to reason it out for all people because of this 'believing without evidence' part of the brain. Surely another large part of the brain is the humans ability for reason and logic, and the natural inquisitive nature of humans?

Secondly, I'd like to see evidence of this 'believing without evidence' part of the brain/mind, as I'm not going to believe without evidence (see what I did there), given how little I think we know about the brain/mind

jtsuited

joker77 wrote: »

A couple of points on this - first off - it sounds a bit simplistic, to reason it out for all people because of this 'believing without evidence' part of the brain. Surely another large part of the brain is the humans ability for reason and logic, and the natural inquisitive nature of humans?
Yup and reason and logic are very different to instinct, and develop over time. We're born with both instinct and reason, but instinct wins most things at that part of our development.

joker77 wrote: »

Secondly, I'd like to see evidence of this 'believing without evidence' part of the brain/mind, as I'm not going to believe without evidence (see what I did there), given how little I think we know about the brain/mind

Well we know the ability exists in most children. If they weren't to have this part of the mind, they would touch everything hot, run out in front of cars, and do all manner of stuff that would most likely kill them. Now granted some kids do these things anywho, but on the most part it is completely observable that as a child learns it has an ability to believe without evidence.
Unless your willing to fund the 'electronic music forum off topic thread double blind controlled lab test involving a truckload of kids, a load of dangerous sh1t and their parents telling them not to stick the dangerous sh1t inside them' I don't think I can provide any evidence that will fulfill your criteria Joker.
From Defected putting out a compilation to this is in just a couple of pages!!!

ianuss

joker77 wrote: »

A couple of points on this - first off - it sounds a bit simplistic, to reason it out for all people because of this 'believing without evidence' part of the brain. Surely another large part of the brain is the humans ability for reason and logic, and the natural inquisitive nature of humans?

Secondly, I'd like to see evidence of this 'believing without evidence' part of the brain/mind, as I'm not going to believe without evidence (see what I did there), given how little I think we know about the brain/mind

I'm currently reading Risk, by Dan Gardner. And he covers this in it. He seperates human thought into 'Head' and 'Gut'. Head is slower, reasoned, logical thought. Gut is instant. He claims that Gut overides Head. It's quite caveman. Designed to help in our survival.

An example he gave was a caveman who sees a lion. He will naturally run, as he will have heard stories of others being killed by lions. He may never have seen someone being killed. But he's not going to stand there and try and workout if it's a danerous situation or not. He's just going to fookin leg it.

jtsuited

that book has been on my to-read list for a while. worth pulling the aul amazon trigger?

ianuss

jtsuited wrote: »

that book has been on my to-read list for a while. worth pulling the aul amazon trigger?

Aye, really good.

BaZmO*

ianuss wrote: »

One of my old history lecturers used to say that Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth. The amount of idiotic mumblings both he and his father came out with was just staggering.

Always find it quite astonishing that so many people think that Dubya was so dumb. He was certainly extremely socially inept at times but one of the smartest tricks he ever pulled off was convincing the American Electorate that he was good ol boy dumb hick. For Christs sake! He was the son of a former President, he was hardly straight out of the swamp. It just suited his agenda to be seen that way.

ianuss wrote: »

I'm currently reading Risk, by Dan Gardner. And he covers this in it. He seperates human thought into 'Head' and 'Gut'. Head is slower, reasoned, logical thought. Gut is instant. He claims that Gut overides Head. It's quite caveman. Designed to help in our survival.

But can that not be stated as "Cerebrum" and "Cerebellum"
The difference is quite distinct in animals compared to humans.
And to use your analogy, Humans would be more "Head" whereas animals would be more "Gut"