Robots are mechanistic, deterministic machines. As such they have no consciousness
Since you admit not understanding what consciousness really means, how can you be so sure that it requires non-determinism ? Also, you have failed to show that human brains are usefully non-deterministic (they may have non-deterministic random noise, but random noise is not useful).
Ordinary radio waves would be took weak to detect at that distance. Just detecting early terrestrial TV shows from the orbit of Pluto would be a massive challenge, and practically impossible from a nearby star. Modern transmissions are even harder to detect, because of the more efficient use of the spectrum.
Or take two different organisms, for instance a cucumber and a dog, and subject them to the same environment from birth, and see which one is better at fetching a ball.
I'd like to see your proposal for a device that can "only" do like 25% of the speed of light, take a massive payload to an unknown planet, and can land safely.
I see you have no better argument than attacking the messenger, since the data is clearly labelled as coming from the NASA GISS database. And your linked piece is not a peer reviewed Nature main article, but a commentary/opinion piece.
1) It's very hard to make autonomous self-replicating robots that can colonize an unknown planet. 2) Stars are extremely far apart. 3) Nobody cares enough to solve these huge challenges for no particular reward.
You'd first have to separate the physical exercise aspect of yoga from the spiritual mumbo jumbo, and do some experiments to see what part is actually causing the physiological benefits.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012)
Anybody adjusting their periods to start at an extreme outlier year has been picking too much cherries.
Here's 1998 in context: https://tamino.files.wordpress... and anybody can see we haven't really broken any trend.
Slashdot Mirror
You never had to worry in the first place.
Disney can keep full rights to Mickey. But everybody gets them too.
Copyright extension is stealing.
You never had this problem when shooting analog movies
Because nobody was stupid enough to film in portrait mode.
Actually, the best way to get answers on a forum is not to ask a polite question, but to state an error.
Show him how to use google to figure out where to get the information he needs.
Mine is half full too. I've no interest in seeing funding wasted on a pointless exercise. I'd rather see more science done.
NASA isn't going send people to Mars. That's just talk to get interest and funding.
The also had a front facing camera, but didn't include the footage, because the heat shield was blocking the view the whole time.
we don't have any way of making a useful payload that small.
What if nobody has ? Paradox solved.
Yeah, maybe I just need to imagine a 10 pound 3D printer where you can feed rocks in the top, and sophisticated nanotechnology drops out the bottom.
but it's trivial to check the stream (or the physical machine) and discard it if you find any flaw.
As long as you have a 100% perfect scanning device, and errors are infrequent enough that you can afford to throw away the entire offspring.
Robots are mechanistic, deterministic machines. As such they have no consciousness
Since you admit not understanding what consciousness really means, how can you be so sure that it requires non-determinism ? Also, you have failed to show that human brains are usefully non-deterministic (they may have non-deterministic random noise, but random noise is not useful).
Ordinary radio waves would be took weak to detect at that distance. Just detecting early terrestrial TV shows from the orbit of Pluto would be a massive challenge, and practically impossible from a nearby star. Modern transmissions are even harder to detect, because of the more efficient use of the spectrum.
Social security numbers should never have been used as secure tokens.
Clearly you didn't read it, and me repeating it won't help you.
No, repeating bullshit arguments rarely helps.
It's not the only paper.
It's the one you linked to, so it's probably the best one you have.
Or take two different organisms, for instance a cucumber and a dog, and subject them to the same environment from birth, and see which one is better at fetching a ball.
I'd like to see your proposal for a device that can "only" do like 25% of the speed of light, take a massive payload to an unknown planet, and can land safely.
I see you have no better argument than attacking the messenger, since the data is clearly labelled as coming from the NASA GISS database. And your linked piece is not a peer reviewed Nature main article, but a commentary/opinion piece.
And in what way is a self replicating robot with a kilt and bagpipes not a True Scotsman ?
1) It's very hard to make autonomous self-replicating robots that can colonize an unknown planet. 2) Stars are extremely far apart. 3) Nobody cares enough to solve these huge challenges for no particular reward.
Any sufficiently advanced communication technology is indistinguishable from noise.
You'd first have to separate the physical exercise aspect of yoga from the spiritual mumbo jumbo, and do some experiments to see what part is actually causing the physiological benefits.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012)
Anybody adjusting their periods to start at an extreme outlier year has been picking too much cherries. Here's 1998 in context: https://tamino.files.wordpress... and anybody can see we haven't really broken any trend.
You don't need to prove a negative. Just come up with a reasonable model that explains the temperature rise of the past century.