I don't want to venture in the debate of religion vs science however it is clear that science is never settled and our understanding can change overnight.
You have given the most amazing logical argument in favor of gun ownership I think I have ever heard. I have never thought about it this way, but it makes perfect sense.
I do agree with your summary. However as brains get more complicated, such as humans, they seem to also become more accepting of changes. For instance, in some people MRI scans indicate activity in sometimes totally different locations. If this is indeed the case then replicating area X to achieve action Y is not nearly so straightforward.
Good luck with growing simulated neurons and their connections. The brain is more complicated than the known universe. The problem with this approach and all decision problems such as this is the massive amount of levels of probabilities. Suppose a probabilistic choice was made near the beginning when a different one should have been made. How will they know that?
This is the problem with science today. Projects don't get funding unless they are wildly out there in terms of concepts. Most people fail to realize though that science actually moves in small increments not wild jumps.
There is a difference between a couple of post docs or even grad students and 1.34 billion. I have a masters in CS with an emphasis in AI. AI will never be "solved" in one giant project like this. Think about trying to create an OS by building huge massively connected models which link various code snippets together. Given enough time you are guaranteed to solve it, but it might be more than the age of the universe.
Massive large projects like this almost always end in utter failure. Even the IBM cat brain project failed to accomplish much. Intelligence is much more complicated than a mere randomly connected neural network. I just hope something good comes from this and it is not a total waste.
Why don't you actually look at the research instead of reading snippets and believing everything you are told. Money drives a lot more than just science.
The problem is he is pointing out systems like VARS which are woefully inadequate for vaccine related problems. There has been 2.5 billion paid out by the legal system for vaccine related injuries. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html I guarantee you that for every court case there is at least a 1000 others that doctors have explained away. Think about it for a second.
Humans have been born for quite a long time and have optimized themselves for that "normal" exposure to the environment. Thus the normal exposure is not really foreign at all. The mother through the breast milk can even pass antibodies to the child thus helping it further. The problem is the chemicals which are historically foreign.
The WHO also lists diet as a bigger risk to well being yet very little is being done about it. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/en/ People would much rather waste trillions on medical costs than fight the problem where it starts.
"Zero detectable health costs"? Look at http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html. So far 2.5 billion has been paid out in court for vaccine related injuries. If you actually think about it for every case brought to court there is probably 100 or maybe a 1000 times more that doctors explain away. Vaccines are not nearly as clean cut as you think.
So you are saying all or none? Which is quite an unconvincing argument and then you tell me to pipe down?
I think vaccines help quite a bit, but diet helps quite a bit more. Anyways, In 1975 Japan eliminated all vaccines for children under two and that when that happened; their infant mortality rate plummeted so that it was the lowest in the world.
I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I am just anti all vaccines for a newborn baby. Why pump a human, at its most critical stage, with a bunch of foreign chemicals? Does a newborn really need to be vaccinated against STD's?
Why not wait until the child is more robust?
Actually I don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old and I don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I am just saying if there is something else that is plausible then why not at least discuss it. Does that not broaden the persons horizons? Single mindedness is bad for religious zealots as well as scientific ones.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to venture in the debate of religion vs science however it is clear that science is never settled and our understanding can change overnight.
You have given the most amazing logical argument in favor of gun ownership I think I have ever heard. I have never thought about it this way, but it makes perfect sense.
So we should hold them as absolute on all matters of truth?
Does a container necessarily need to be more complex than what is contained? What about a cardboard box with a computer inside? Try again please.
I do agree with your summary. However as brains get more complicated, such as humans, they seem to also become more accepting of changes. For instance, in some people MRI scans indicate activity in sometimes totally different locations. If this is indeed the case then replicating area X to achieve action Y is not nearly so straightforward.
Actually for all logical systems it is provable you just have to go to a high logic than the system you want to prove it in.
Good luck with growing simulated neurons and their connections. The brain is more complicated than the known universe. The problem with this approach and all decision problems such as this is the massive amount of levels of probabilities. Suppose a probabilistic choice was made near the beginning when a different one should have been made. How will they know that?
This is the problem with science today. Projects don't get funding unless they are wildly out there in terms of concepts. Most people fail to realize though that science actually moves in small increments not wild jumps.
There is a difference between a couple of post docs or even grad students and 1.34 billion. I have a masters in CS with an emphasis in AI. AI will never be "solved" in one giant project like this. Think about trying to create an OS by building huge massively connected models which link various code snippets together. Given enough time you are guaranteed to solve it, but it might be more than the age of the universe.
Massive large projects like this almost always end in utter failure. Even the IBM cat brain project failed to accomplish much. Intelligence is much more complicated than a mere randomly connected neural network. I just hope something good comes from this and it is not a total waste.
The numbers don't lie, but your interpretation of them might.
Why don't you actually look at the research instead of reading snippets and believing everything you are told. Money drives a lot more than just science.
The use of polio as a vaccine example is an epic failure. There is a clear correlation between insecticide use and polio for instance. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/west5a.html When the polio vaccine for first introduced polio rates dramatically shot up. Most european governments even banned the polio vaccine. http://www.vaccinetruth.org/polio_vaccines.htm As of today the polio vaccine is the number one cause of polio. http://www.preventdisease.com/news/12/011812_Polio-Vaccinations-Are-Now-The-Number-One-Cause-of-Polio-Paralysis.shtml
There is some logic to that but not much. There is a clear correlation between insecticide use and polio for instance. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/west5a.html When the polio vaccine for first introduced polio rates dramatically shot up. Some governments even banned the polio vaccine. http://www.vaccinetruth.org/polio_vaccines.htm As of today the polio vaccine is the number one cause of polio. http://www.preventdisease.com/news/12/011812_Polio-Vaccinations-Are-Now-The-Number-One-Cause-of-Polio-Paralysis.shtml
The problem is he is pointing out systems like VARS which are woefully inadequate for vaccine related problems. There has been 2.5 billion paid out by the legal system for vaccine related injuries. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html I guarantee you that for every court case there is at least a 1000 others that doctors have explained away. Think about it for a second.
In 1975 Japan pushed all vaccines to 2 years or older. Their infant mortality dropped to the lowest in the world.
Humans have been born for quite a long time and have optimized themselves for that "normal" exposure to the environment. Thus the normal exposure is not really foreign at all. The mother through the breast milk can even pass antibodies to the child thus helping it further. The problem is the chemicals which are historically foreign.
A lot of problems were also caused because of malnutrition yet that is never really thought about.
The WHO also lists diet as a bigger risk to well being yet very little is being done about it. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/en/ People would much rather waste trillions on medical costs than fight the problem where it starts.
"Zero detectable health costs"? Look at http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html. So far 2.5 billion has been paid out in court for vaccine related injuries. If you actually think about it for every case brought to court there is probably 100 or maybe a 1000 times more that doctors explain away. Vaccines are not nearly as clean cut as you think.
So you are saying all or none? Which is quite an unconvincing argument and then you tell me to pipe down? I think vaccines help quite a bit, but diet helps quite a bit more. Anyways, In 1975 Japan eliminated all vaccines for children under two and that when that happened; their infant mortality rate plummeted so that it was the lowest in the world.
I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I am just anti all vaccines for a newborn baby. Why pump a human, at its most critical stage, with a bunch of foreign chemicals? Does a newborn really need to be vaccinated against STD's? Why not wait until the child is more robust?
Actually I don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old and I don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I am just saying if there is something else that is plausible then why not at least discuss it. Does that not broaden the persons horizons? Single mindedness is bad for religious zealots as well as scientific ones.
Chicago Public School, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/580789/posts
MA Public School, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y
San Diego Public School, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p01s03-ussc.html
General, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm
I wholly agree. I think science and religion are two ways of looking at the same thing.