They are. Ever heard of having genetic algorithms design neural-network controlled players ?
That's one non-interactive AI designing another interactive AI in order to improve a certain function.
And if your criterium is actual reproduction, let's keep in mind that no single humans are capable of even making a C64-level computer from scratch. Even a simple calculator would be pushing it too far for all but a few engineers.
The only way humans are capable of "improving their own design" according to darwin is to have lots of kids, then kill most of them.
You understand, we do expect AI's to do better than that. Because that, they can do today.
Only philosophical bullshit. AI is making way too many simplifications in how the brain works, but this book contains even less material. It makes sweeping conclusions based on almost no data.
And how exactly could evolution ever be the guiding principle in anyone's life, atheist or otherwise? Atheism is the absence of belief in god, christian or any other kind. Just because an atheist does not believe in a christian god does not mean they have to find one somewhere else, so they aren't substituting evolution for god. Atheism doesn't worship anything, because there is nothing to worship.
It's really simple, you know. Just as the bible contains a reason to live, so does Darwin's theory.
The bible's reason to live ? It's criterion for success of a life ? To live well, morally, and have many kids... As anyone knows.
The "real world" Darwin's theory reason to live ? Darwin's criterion of success. To do whatever it takes under any circumstance to become the one family left alive.
You might claim it's superficial resemblance to the bible's ethos. After all it involves kids, many kids. But Darwin's theory involves one extra thing : making sure you have more resources, EXPLICITLY at the expense of others. Even (perhaps especially) when that means others die. This is also something everyone knows, but is very politically inconvenient.
And btw : if you knew even a modicum of AI, you'd realise the simple truth that every last algorithm embodies. Without a violently imposed and enforced ideology, there is NO moral boundary that will not be crossed, not a single one. It's just the way any intelligence works. Try out the limits of behavior, and try to gain an advantage through that until you get thrown back. Nobody wishes to admit the obvious implication : it is a matter of "a number" of generations living as atheists until genocide is an accepted practice.
This effect is thinly masked by the fact that today nearly all atheists come from relatively strict christian families. They behave morally, because they still carry the values of their parents, just a little less than their parents. The children of the present generation will care much less, and their children will again care much less. And the situation will blow up.
But people have to die by the millions again before you'll accept the evident truth.
You might want to read a few books like "religion is not about God", or just brush up on classical literature. Remind yourself exactly what happened when the romans became atheist. "Catilina" is a nice person to start at. Or you might brush up on Greek, or even Hebrew. Or you might read up on the history of the french republic, robespierre. Or the bolsjevik revolution.
This is exactly right. It is even the exact same principles.
Kids in the 1950's saw Newton's mechanics, Maxwell's electricity.
Kids today are taught... Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electricity.
There is ZERO difference in those theories. Relativity, other than being mentioned is not considered. It's too hard. If your teacher is a total blowhard he would show you Mercury's orbit is wrong according to Newton's mechanics. He will then proceed to show you Einstein's equation. He will not actually ask you to calculate the new orbit's stability or shape, nor it's period. It's a double integral to even get the basic shape and it doesn't get much easier after that.
All the recent physics theories are too hard for anyone without a graduate degree in mathematics.
That means that today's students are failing the EXACT SAME subject as the 1950's students passed. The very same letters on the very same places in the same formulae.
And any scientist knows this. Outside of military radar systems, nuclear engineering , physical chip design (done by 3 companies, about 300 people worldwide) and ITER the only physics used are Newtonian. Even in the real world people are still using the exact same theories they used in 1950. It's computers that have made us more capable since the first years after WWII, and there have been few, if any, fundamental physics moved into the real world.
The highest buildings of the world in Shanghai are constructed and calculated with programs that bascially calculate what happens when you connect 2 springs. The newest electrical cars and engines are constructed (by machines) attempting to optimize classical electricity, totally discounting quantum mechanics.
But the next generation won't understand how it works.
We'd rather believe in magic and political correctness. That's, after all, much easier. Reality is what the movies show, not what a correct calculation yields. People are "basically good, except you know when they're killing". Physics are what you see in "the sarah connor chronicles" (just calculate how heavy a robot would have to be to stop a car dead in it's tracks, or explain why the robot isn't thrown off several hundred meters), or "independance day". Global warming, no matter how absurd the thought that the earth will actually warm significantly (cooling significantly is much more realistic), is what you read in papers. Thinking for yourself, that's a crime.
We'd rather believe in magic and let the chinese calculate for us... thinking, certainly implementing thoughts, causes co2 emissions, and we can't damage "gaia" now can we ? Progress causes fundamental unfairness amongst people (that would be correct, and that is the very essence of Darwin's theory. But "darwin" is only a word, to be used when people ask you why you don't go to church, not a theory with actual content).
Progress, whether nuclear plants, fusion technology or even better planes, is "the enemy" to so many Americans. Muslims kill 5000 people on a single day but the "real enemy" is our own society, and above all the people who created the knowledge we now all enjoy (they were those must ugly of things, protestants and catholics). And they did so to "explore the beauty of God's creation". But they are the enemy. The people who kill even their own family "for their god", are our new friends. Their "identity" must be allowed to override reality, which is an idea at the very center of the next american government.
The world is absurd. This is not going to end well.
So it all boils down to whether or not you want to believe in a "someone" (ie. God) that's always existed, or matter that has always existed. But you will never in this life know for sure whether you're right or wrong.
It is blatantly false to say that science is devoid of reasons to believe in God. Evolution theory, in my humble opinion is inherently morally wrong and unjust, and therefore a very good reason to believe in God. I do not want to live in a world where evolution is the guiding principle in any person's life even if it is true.
There are very good reasons Christian morality has conquered the world, and to be honest I fear we may actually find out, thanks to "atheists", what happens when they're gone.
This is double stupid, since we know "what happened last time", and it wasn't pleasant to say the least.
So you don't believe in the Big Bang theory then ? Logically there must be a way to globally increase entropy.
It always decreases, and it's not zero... that means something pushed it up. Unless you believe in God, you have to believe that the second law of thermodynamics must have been at the very least violated once.
That, combined with the basic assumption of science, that the laws of nature are constant and unchanging, yields that there is some way to increase entropy globally.
Even if that were true (and it's not. In fact the Israeli's consistently OBEYED the resolutions time and time again until the arabs betrayed them time and time again) the arabs, their opponents, have declared they will NEVER follow the human rights charter. Arabs have consistently exploited every last chance they had to kill Jews, and Jews have consistently restrained themselves.
If the arabs drop their arms today, tomorrow there is peace in the middle east. If the Jews drop their arms, tomorrow the holocaust is restarted.
And you expect the Jews to undergo ANOTHER holocaust, just so you can feel you made them "act fair" against arabs.
Arabs rejected human rights, all their governments, many democratic, did so. They did not do this as Arabs, they did not do this as "palestinians", Jordanians or Egyptians or any nationality. They did this AS A RELIGION.
The reason arabs reject human rights is that "it's against allah's will". Of course their prophet, who dictated "allah's will" was a paedophile massacring slave-trader. This might have something to do with the contents of their belief system.
It has been declared fundamentally incompatible with sharia by every muslim institution of authority.
So what's your answer now ? The muslims, and yes the muslims, the people who adhere to the paedophile religion, declared their intention to fight and kill until human rights are no more. It's right there in the wikipedia link, the references are all abound, and VERY hard to deny.
So what now ? Do you tolerate their religion, and their constant violation of human rights, or do you push human rights, demanding, if necessary by force of arms, they drop their religion, at least partially.
Take a concrete case : Do you think women are equal to men OR that muslims get to exist. This is, mind you, an EXCLUSIVE OR, not a choice.
Read the quran, if you have any doubts about the content of islam. Note that it literally states "muslims are the slaves of allah, he bought their souls in trade for paradise. They are slaves and their orders are to fight, kill and die in allah's name. To fight until there is only islam".
The point is that intelligence-made structures have high entropy, while nature-made structure have low entropy.
Now let's look at your examples: -> a perfectly flat desert : LOW entropy. Perhaps a bit higher than a not-quite-flat-but-looking-flat desert, but defineately LOW entropy.
Therefore it is not made by an intelligence. (according to this measure)
-> The surface of most gas planets : LOW entropy (obviously). Compare it to earth's ocean floor. It is mostly very, very flat. When a robot is standing on the ocean floor, he will see kilometers of perfectly flat dark terrain. The only real features, like volcanoes or sunken ships, come from external activity with high entropy (though not necessarily intelligence) That terrain does not have instabilities. It has very, very LOW entropy.
Therefore you can conclude it not to be man-made. You'd conclude the ships to be intelligently-made, which is correct, but you'd also call the volcanoes intelligently-made which is not correct. Unless the zulus are right and we better start throwing women into volcanoes to placate the volcano god, that is.
Now let's take another example. A road network. This is not a stable structure (without maintenance it will dissappear). It is something of very high contrasts, which will release lots of energy during it's decomposition, parts of it can collapse violently at any time (e.g. bridges), and over time it would be buried, made to look exactly like it's surroundings.
Therefore it has high entropy (certainly higher than it's environment) and would therefore be man-made.
Of course there are non-intelligent very very high entropy structures, like the magnetic field or the corona of the sun. Especially the magnetic fields are high entropy, and presumably not the result of intelligent design. (which are somehow capable of heating earth by at least a few dozen degrees with little warning. Currently they are heating the earth quite a bit, and we don't understand them at all).
But if "anything with high entropy is designed by an intelligent being" is your assumption then, yes, you'd presume God to be real (not allah, not krishna, not buddha, since those ideologies are in direct conflict with scientific theory. They both claim that scientific experiments have no validity, and convey no truth. Therefore using an experiment to validate them is beyond stupid. The bible, otoh, even describes a few experiments and accepts their outcomes as "obviously true". Since for example muslims claim allah decides "intelligently" the outcome of every single experiment every time it's carried out, the result of any experiment would change over time. Therefore any experiment, no matter what it's about, doesn't represent any truth to any muslim. Otherwise you'd directly arrive at the claim that the quran must correctly follow mathematics, which is a claim the quran fails (e.g. fractions of the same quantity in the quran don't add up to 1 : islamic inheritance laws are mathematically flawed in a way any 3-year old learns in school : if you cut a pie, the pieces always add up to a whole pie, never to more, never to less). The bible does seem to follow mathematics by contrast, at least you might say it tries, and even acknowledges that better study can yield better results. E.g. the bible claims salomon measured pi to be "a bit more" than 3, and claims a few centuries later it was measured to be 22/7, which is quite accurate).
The problem with equating high entropy with intelligent design is simple. The universe as a whole most certainly (currently) has a very (very) high entropy. The further back in time we go (and so presumably the closer to the creator) the higher entropy we see. So if entropy is higher for intelligently designed things, then most certainly the universe is designed, since the entropy at the start was infinite (according to big bang theory). (insert remark about correlation-causation not being equal*)
Of course that's discounting the fact that high-entropy events
It's funny how blind politically correct idiots can be. Nobody, not even Saddam himself, disputes that Saddam's army, under the direction of "Chemical Ali", FIRED WMD's AT DEFENSELESS CIVILIANS.
But of course it's politically expedient to claim he didn't have them.
It's a sad joke that people can be so stupid. It's like agreeing that a convicted murderer, who shot 10 people on live television, then bragged about it to the whole wold "never touched a gun". It's beyond stupid.
*sigh* this is just so stupid it's hard to decide where to begin, but I'll try :
When you see an American article, in English, you always see "AP", "AFP" under it. There is a third agency, but it's name escapes me for now.
AP stands for associated press, which is not American AFP stands for "agence france-presse" which is french.
They cooperate with one another, hardly ever making double coverage, so in practice an article with AP under it might have come from AFP. They both translate those articles in over 30 languages, and give their clients, like cnn, the right to copy them verbatim.
So 1/3rd (in theory, in practice more) of all the news you see has been collected by French reporters, or at least reporters paid by french people.
You will find nearly all news duplicated across the atlantic in practice. Everybody agrees having a singular entity collect all news is a terrible idea. Everybody also agrees that it's cheaper, so it wasn't a contest at all.
Also keep in mind that e.g. during the Israel-Lebanon (or rather Israel vs Lebanese terrorists that Lebanon couldn't (and can't) deal with, who are therefore in massive violation of just about every international treaty by their existence alone), AFP hired a Hezbollah "kolonel" to collect news for them (he had very good access to the battlefield, you see, and he didn't tell AFP about his position). This is then passed of as "impartial" information.
But the sad reality is, there isn't any alternative to them.
Ban on flash drives... doesn't seem they came in through the internet.
(btw : of course the military has computers connected directly to the internet. They created the internet. The remaining systems are only sensitive in the economic sense of the word though)
That would make things like headscarves for women racist. Actually since they're meant as a mark of separation, a mark that they want nothing to do with infidel men, they kinda are, aren't they ?
The point isn't to benefit either the students OR their communities. Otherwise it would be called "investment", not "charity". "Charity" means helping people AGAINST your own intrest.
If they're mere investment bankers, a sort of insurance salesmen, then they should call themselves such.
How exactly are war systems designed to kill people ?
Ok, well, perhaps I can understand that in the 100% direct literal sense of the word you're right. But in all other senses they are designed to save lives. To improve lives.
You don't choose war. War is forced upon you. By the enemy, or, and let's hope this never happens again, by resource constraints (if 2 people need a resource to survive, 1 will die, so he might as well spend his last month or so trying to kill the other one, e.g. if oil goes to $200 and STAYS there for 6 months, there will be war).
So what war equipment really does is saving lives. Both civilian lives (certainly on your side, in the case of fighting terrorists even on the other side) and military lives on your side, and if your design is really good, something the enemy could never hope to conquer, then also on the other side.
Calling war equipment "murder tools" is like calling medicine "environmental disasters", like calling building houses for tsunami victims "destroying nature". Yes it's true in the literal sense of the word. Medicines are really, really, really bad for a whole number of species, and those shelters for victims obviously need to be built somewhere, so they destroy nature, so an extremely shortsighted individual could truthfully call them bad for the environment.
*sigh* it's very rational if you look at it from a darwinian perspective. By building said brain and starting it on it's conquest we are really spreading our influence far beyond the limits our bodies would allow.
Such a simulated brain might be simulated, but it would still carry our thoughts, our likeness, even our culture. That simulated brain would probably take genes with him/her (?) as well.
So if you look at it from the point of view of the species, it's a very very good move. If you look at it from the perspective of a living human individual, then yes it's probably a disaster.
Life doesn't end because skynet wins. In fact it would probably go places it could never hope to go if skynet loses.
Or simply reverse the business plan : de-open-source the core. Open-source only the extensions.
That would allow everyone the choice to be open-source or not, extension developer or core developer.
If you think you can't close the source, think again. If you put an active development team on the closed version, and leave the open source to rot it will die after a few hiccups. People have an extremely low tolerance for quality differences. You could still give the source with the product (and not publish it, like the GPL explicitly allows).
And to be honest... do it before a competitor (or as you say... a customer) does it for you. You can do it better than they can right now. With open source that's not a certainty into the future.
I did not say there were no middle roads. Merely that greenies will never accept them.
Nuclear power expansion is the ideal middle road today after all. Barely needs any space. Lots of power. Cheap. Fuel many times recyclable. 1 kg fuel powers new york for a year. Few, tiny mines... what else could you ask for ?
Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.
"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."
That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.
"My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "
Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."
She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.
To me this sounds a lot more scientific than your average nutcase. Of course any real scientist would want balanced discussion, weighing of the alternatives, knowledge of the theory's assumptions and doubt. Above all, a scientist would want doubt. He'd want anyone and everyone to try to poke holes in his theories. That's the way science moves ahead. If in a discussion the right theory doesn't gain an advantage then there's obviously something wrong with the theory. As long as they don't prohibit kids from learning about evolution, nor force creationism into biology class. I think it's a very positive, a very scientific way of doing things.
They might learn... (oh the horror)... convincing arguments that creationism is wrong. They might actually become able to challenge a creationist. They might actually become able to point out flaws in theories. I guess some evolutionists are just as bad at tolerating criticism as religious loonies are.
And her personal views ? I guess for atheists (even though I am one) freedom of religion is only for them, not for others. If one's not an atheist, the government is not for you... If that were true 50 years ago, atheists might have been massacred the way they are in muslim nations today.
And let's not forget her opponent: -> only won his first election by forcing (some say blackmail was involved) his opponents of the ballot -> accepted the following statement as one of his main religious principles : "If there's a God for white people we must kill him", and there's a lot more REALLY bad stuff there. Obama's either a racist, or at the very, very least, very tolerant of extreme racism. He may not be a Hitler but he's got Chamberlain beat. -> was one of the directors of ACORN, which is involved in massive voter registration crimes all over the country -> is at least a closet communist, if not worse.
I mean let's not pretend that Palin has the more troubling ideology amongst the candidates.
Why is there so much tolerance for people with "scientific" opinion with such entirely anti-scientific opinions like: -> we know everything -> everything we "know" is correct -> everyone else is wrong (given that not all atheists and scientists agree, this is especially stupid. E.g. nuclear power, or (A)GW, or...) -> that there can be no doubt, instead of constant doubt
For the record : I believe in GW, but let's not forget that it's basically a series of computation results, which fail to reasonably predict the most active temperature influence on earth : the sun. They failed to predict that 2005-? would be cooling years, and would cool the globe of a LOT. Furthermore they predict continuous warming moving farther into the future, which is obviously wrong (at some point input/output will obviously balance, no matter the level of co2 in the athmosphere). So there are alarmingly large margins of error in this theory and in reality we'd best give
And running the required cables to them will be very destructive... As will their anchor points etc...
The greens will always find something or other. If they truly do not find anything else they will claim that the increased consumption this causes (which is a good thing in reality) causes increased pollution in factories and cities.
Which will be true.
The only way to live green is to lay down and die, after having demolished the last city and killed the last human being. Of course, it would last about 100.000 or-so years before the next species evolves to civilization level and re-destroys everything.
Would they know about us ? Would they declare us nuts to destroy ourselves over being green ? If they don't they'll die too.
So any living civilization would declare green policies nuts. That, of course means that calling ourselves living would be a stretch... Well that's probably correct in describing "green" "braincells". And we all know there's a lot of those around. Hardly any can point out America on a m... well hardly any can point out the map in the classroom, really.
Actually organic brains in chips would have massive advantages over organic brains in meatspace. They could control other bodies, which are smaller, or stronger. They could be backed up, making them effectively indestructible.
Need a third arm ? Why not have it installed, 50% off this week !
Need to put down a building ? Why not hire this crane-like body that effortlessly lifts 5 tons.
Need to fly ? No problem !
That crawlspace with all those important network cables too small for you ? Well here's a smaller body.
Can't reach in there ? Can't see what you're doing in small space ? Why not have a special-purpose arm installed with a camera inside.
Want to colonize mars ? Bit of a downer not being able to breathe 99% of the way ? Why not turn yourself off ?
Colonize alpha centauri or even further ? No problem.
What this would enable "us" to do is to design new intelligent species to specifications. It would remove all limits that are not inherent to intelligence but are inherent in our bodies. There's quite a few limits like that...
Are we talking about the same woman ? She's not a creationist. Her point is that you can whine about genesis all you want in religion classes and whine about evolution in biology classes.
How does restricting religion to religion class make one a creationist ?
Obama on the other hand uses the police to supress criticism of him. And that's proven, not some idiotic conjecture.
Slashdot Mirror
They are. Ever heard of having genetic algorithms design neural-network controlled players ?
That's one non-interactive AI designing another interactive AI in order to improve a certain function.
And if your criterium is actual reproduction, let's keep in mind that no single humans are capable of even making a C64-level computer from scratch. Even a simple calculator would be pushing it too far for all but a few engineers.
The only way humans are capable of "improving their own design" according to darwin is to have lots of kids, then kill most of them.
You understand, we do expect AI's to do better than that. Because that, they can do today.
Only philosophical bullshit. AI is making way too many simplifications in how the brain works, but this book contains even less material. It makes sweeping conclusions based on almost no data.
It is very, very probably flat out wrong.
And how exactly could evolution ever be the guiding principle in anyone's life, atheist or otherwise? Atheism is the absence of belief in god, christian or any other kind. Just because an atheist does not believe in a christian god does not mean they have to find one somewhere else, so they aren't substituting evolution for god. Atheism doesn't worship anything, because there is nothing to worship.
It's really simple, you know. Just as the bible contains a reason to live, so does Darwin's theory.
The bible's reason to live ? It's criterion for success of a life ? To live well, morally, and have many kids ... As anyone knows.
The "real world" Darwin's theory reason to live ? Darwin's criterion of success. To do whatever it takes under any circumstance to become the one family left alive.
You might claim it's superficial resemblance to the bible's ethos. After all it involves kids, many kids. But Darwin's theory involves one extra thing : making sure you have more resources, EXPLICITLY at the expense of others. Even (perhaps especially) when that means others die. This is also something everyone knows, but is very politically inconvenient.
And btw : if you knew even a modicum of AI, you'd realise the simple truth that every last algorithm embodies. Without a violently imposed and enforced ideology, there is NO moral boundary that will not be crossed, not a single one. It's just the way any intelligence works. Try out the limits of behavior, and try to gain an advantage through that until you get thrown back. Nobody wishes to admit the obvious implication : it is a matter of "a number" of generations living as atheists until genocide is an accepted practice.
This effect is thinly masked by the fact that today nearly all atheists come from relatively strict christian families. They behave morally, because they still carry the values of their parents, just a little less than their parents. The children of the present generation will care much less, and their children will again care much less. And the situation will blow up.
But people have to die by the millions again before you'll accept the evident truth.
You might want to read a few books like "religion is not about God", or just brush up on classical literature. Remind yourself exactly what happened when the romans became atheist. "Catilina" is a nice person to start at. Or you might brush up on Greek, or even Hebrew. Or you might read up on the history of the french republic, robespierre. Or the bolsjevik revolution.
This is exactly right. It is even the exact same principles.
Kids in the 1950's saw Newton's mechanics, Maxwell's electricity.
Kids today are taught ... Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electricity.
There is ZERO difference in those theories. Relativity, other than being mentioned is not considered. It's too hard. If your teacher is a total blowhard he would show you Mercury's orbit is wrong according to Newton's mechanics. He will then proceed to show you Einstein's equation. He will not actually ask you to calculate the new orbit's stability or shape, nor it's period. It's a double integral to even get the basic shape and it doesn't get much easier after that.
All the recent physics theories are too hard for anyone without a graduate degree in mathematics.
That means that today's students are failing the EXACT SAME subject as the 1950's students passed. The very same letters on the very same places in the same formulae.
And any scientist knows this. Outside of military radar systems, nuclear engineering , physical chip design (done by 3 companies, about 300 people worldwide) and ITER the only physics used are Newtonian. Even in the real world people are still using the exact same theories they used in 1950. It's computers that have made us more capable since the first years after WWII, and there have been few, if any, fundamental physics moved into the real world.
The highest buildings of the world in Shanghai are constructed and calculated with programs that bascially calculate what happens when you connect 2 springs. The newest electrical cars and engines are constructed (by machines) attempting to optimize classical electricity, totally discounting quantum mechanics.
But the next generation won't understand how it works.
We'd rather believe in magic and political correctness. That's, after all, much easier. Reality is what the movies show, not what a correct calculation yields. People are "basically good, except you know when they're killing". Physics are what you see in "the sarah connor chronicles" (just calculate how heavy a robot would have to be to stop a car dead in it's tracks, or explain why the robot isn't thrown off several hundred meters), or "independance day". Global warming, no matter how absurd the thought that the earth will actually warm significantly (cooling significantly is much more realistic), is what you read in papers. Thinking for yourself, that's a crime.
We'd rather believe in magic and let the chinese calculate for us ... thinking, certainly implementing thoughts, causes co2 emissions, and we can't damage "gaia" now can we ? Progress causes fundamental unfairness amongst people (that would be correct, and that is the very essence of Darwin's theory. But "darwin" is only a word, to be used when people ask you why you don't go to church, not a theory with actual content).
Progress, whether nuclear plants, fusion technology or even better planes, is "the enemy" to so many Americans. Muslims kill 5000 people on a single day but the "real enemy" is our own society, and above all the people who created the knowledge we now all enjoy (they were those must ugly of things, protestants and catholics). And they did so to "explore the beauty of God's creation". But they are the enemy. The people who kill even their own family "for their god", are our new friends. Their "identity" must be allowed to override reality, which is an idea at the very center of the next american government.
The world is absurd. This is not going to end well.
So it all boils down to whether or not you want to believe in a "someone" (ie. God) that's always existed, or matter that has always existed. But you will never in this life know for sure whether you're right or wrong.
It is blatantly false to say that science is devoid of reasons to believe in God. Evolution theory, in my humble opinion is inherently morally wrong and unjust, and therefore a very good reason to believe in God. I do not want to live in a world where evolution is the guiding principle in any person's life even if it is true.
There are very good reasons Christian morality has conquered the world, and to be honest I fear we may actually find out, thanks to "atheists", what happens when they're gone.
This is double stupid, since we know "what happened last time", and it wasn't pleasant to say the least.
So you don't believe in the Big Bang theory then ? Logically there must be a way to globally increase entropy.
It always decreases, and it's not zero ... that means something pushed it up. Unless you believe in God, you have to believe that the second law of thermodynamics must have been at the very least violated once.
That, combined with the basic assumption of science, that the laws of nature are constant and unchanging, yields that there is some way to increase entropy globally.
Even if that were true (and it's not. In fact the Israeli's consistently OBEYED the resolutions time and time again until the arabs betrayed them time and time again) the arabs, their opponents, have declared they will NEVER follow the human rights charter. Arabs have consistently exploited every last chance they had to kill Jews, and Jews have consistently restrained themselves.
If the arabs drop their arms today, tomorrow there is peace in the middle east. If the Jews drop their arms, tomorrow the holocaust is restarted.
And you expect the Jews to undergo ANOTHER holocaust, just so you can feel you made them "act fair" against arabs.
Arabs rejected human rights, all their governments, many democratic, did so. They did not do this as Arabs, they did not do this as "palestinians", Jordanians or Egyptians or any nationality. They did this AS A RELIGION.
The reason arabs reject human rights is that "it's against allah's will". Of course their prophet, who dictated "allah's will" was a paedophile massacring slave-trader. This might have something to do with the contents of their belief system.
It has been declared fundamentally incompatible with sharia by every muslim institution of authority.
So what's your answer now ? The muslims, and yes the muslims, the people who adhere to the paedophile religion, declared their intention to fight and kill until human rights are no more. It's right there in the wikipedia link, the references are all abound, and VERY hard to deny.
So what now ? Do you tolerate their religion, and their constant violation of human rights, or do you push human rights, demanding, if necessary by force of arms, they drop their religion, at least partially.
Take a concrete case : Do you think women are equal to men OR that muslims get to exist. This is, mind you, an EXCLUSIVE OR, not a choice.
Read the quran, if you have any doubts about the content of islam. Note that it literally states "muslims are the slaves of allah, he bought their souls in trade for paradise. They are slaves and their orders are to fight, kill and die in allah's name. To fight until there is only islam".
You're wrong :
The point is that intelligence-made structures have high entropy, while nature-made structure have low entropy.
Now let's look at your examples :
-> a perfectly flat desert : LOW entropy. Perhaps a bit higher than a not-quite-flat-but-looking-flat desert, but defineately LOW entropy.
Therefore it is not made by an intelligence. (according to this measure)
-> The surface of most gas planets : LOW entropy (obviously). Compare it to earth's ocean floor. It is mostly very, very flat. When a robot is standing on the ocean floor, he will see kilometers of perfectly flat dark terrain. The only real features, like volcanoes or sunken ships, come from external activity with high entropy (though not necessarily intelligence) That terrain does not have instabilities. It has very, very LOW entropy.
Therefore you can conclude it not to be man-made. You'd conclude the ships to be intelligently-made, which is correct, but you'd also call the volcanoes intelligently-made which is not correct. Unless the zulus are right and we better start throwing women into volcanoes to placate the volcano god, that is.
Now let's take another example. A road network. This is not a stable structure (without maintenance it will dissappear). It is something of very high contrasts, which will release lots of energy during it's decomposition, parts of it can collapse violently at any time (e.g. bridges), and over time it would be buried, made to look exactly like it's surroundings.
Therefore it has high entropy (certainly higher than it's environment) and would therefore be man-made.
Of course there are non-intelligent very very high entropy structures, like the magnetic field or the corona of the sun. Especially the magnetic fields are high entropy, and presumably not the result of intelligent design. (which are somehow capable of heating earth by at least a few dozen degrees with little warning. Currently they are heating the earth quite a bit, and we don't understand them at all).
But if "anything with high entropy is designed by an intelligent being" is your assumption then, yes, you'd presume God to be real (not allah, not krishna, not buddha, since those ideologies are in direct conflict with scientific theory. They both claim that scientific experiments have no validity, and convey no truth. Therefore using an experiment to validate them is beyond stupid. The bible, otoh, even describes a few experiments and accepts their outcomes as "obviously true". Since for example muslims claim allah decides "intelligently" the outcome of every single experiment every time it's carried out, the result of any experiment would change over time. Therefore any experiment, no matter what it's about, doesn't represent any truth to any muslim. Otherwise you'd directly arrive at the claim that the quran must correctly follow mathematics, which is a claim the quran fails (e.g. fractions of the same quantity in the quran don't add up to 1 : islamic inheritance laws are mathematically flawed in a way any 3-year old learns in school : if you cut a pie, the pieces always add up to a whole pie, never to more, never to less). The bible does seem to follow mathematics by contrast, at least you might say it tries, and even acknowledges that better study can yield better results. E.g. the bible claims salomon measured pi to be "a bit more" than 3, and claims a few centuries later it was measured to be 22/7, which is quite accurate).
The problem with equating high entropy with intelligent design is simple. The universe as a whole most certainly (currently) has a very (very) high entropy. The further back in time we go (and so presumably the closer to the creator) the higher entropy we see. So if entropy is higher for intelligently designed things, then most certainly the universe is designed, since the entropy at the start was infinite (according to big bang theory). (insert remark about correlation-causation not being equal*)
Of course that's discounting the fact that high-entropy events
Btw : google "halabja campaign" for pictures that will be VERY hard to deny. And will make it very hard to keep your lunch inside too.
It's funny how blind politically correct idiots can be. Nobody, not even Saddam himself, disputes that Saddam's army, under the direction of "Chemical Ali", FIRED WMD's AT DEFENSELESS CIVILIANS.
But of course it's politically expedient to claim he didn't have them.
It's a sad joke that people can be so stupid. It's like agreeing that a convicted murderer, who shot 10 people on live television, then bragged about it to the whole wold "never touched a gun". It's beyond stupid.
*sigh* this is just so stupid it's hard to decide where to begin, but I'll try :
When you see an American article, in English, you always see "AP", "AFP" under it. There is a third agency, but it's name escapes me for now.
AP stands for associated press, which is not American
AFP stands for "agence france-presse" which is french.
They cooperate with one another, hardly ever making double coverage, so in practice an article with AP under it might have come from AFP. They both translate those articles in over 30 languages, and give their clients, like cnn, the right to copy them verbatim.
So 1/3rd (in theory, in practice more) of all the news you see has been collected by French reporters, or at least reporters paid by french people.
You will find nearly all news duplicated across the atlantic in practice. Everybody agrees having a singular entity collect all news is a terrible idea. Everybody also agrees that it's cheaper, so it wasn't a contest at all.
Also keep in mind that e.g. during the Israel-Lebanon (or rather Israel vs Lebanese terrorists that Lebanon couldn't (and can't) deal with, who are therefore in massive violation of just about every international treaty by their existence alone), AFP hired a Hezbollah "kolonel" to collect news for them (he had very good access to the battlefield, you see, and he didn't tell AFP about his position). This is then passed of as "impartial" information.
But the sad reality is, there isn't any alternative to them.
Ban on flash drives ... doesn't seem they came in through the internet.
(btw : of course the military has computers connected directly to the internet. They created the internet. The remaining systems are only sensitive in the economic sense of the word though)
just my 2c
That would make things like headscarves for women racist. Actually since they're meant as a mark of separation, a mark that they want nothing to do with infidel men, they kinda are, aren't they ?
The point isn't to benefit either the students OR their communities. Otherwise it would be called "investment", not "charity". "Charity" means helping people AGAINST your own intrest.
If they're mere investment bankers, a sort of insurance salesmen, then they should call themselves such.
Then, as they say ... watch the walls turn red. Or whatever color crayons you gave the kid.
The perfect gift for a 2-year old ? You ! (your attention, your laughter, your ...)
So you're totally against abortion then ? Do you eat meat ? Do you eat plants ?
By the way it simply states "you shall not murder". You get to kill in quite a few circumstances.
How exactly are war systems designed to kill people ?
Ok, well, perhaps I can understand that in the 100% direct literal sense of the word you're right. But in all other senses they are designed to save lives. To improve lives.
You don't choose war. War is forced upon you. By the enemy, or, and let's hope this never happens again, by resource constraints (if 2 people need a resource to survive, 1 will die, so he might as well spend his last month or so trying to kill the other one, e.g. if oil goes to $200 and STAYS there for 6 months, there will be war).
So what war equipment really does is saving lives. Both civilian lives (certainly on your side, in the case of fighting terrorists even on the other side) and military lives on your side, and if your design is really good, something the enemy could never hope to conquer, then also on the other side.
Calling war equipment "murder tools" is like calling medicine "environmental disasters", like calling building houses for tsunami victims "destroying nature". Yes it's true in the literal sense of the word. Medicines are really, really, really bad for a whole number of species, and those shelters for victims obviously need to be built somewhere, so they destroy nature, so an extremely shortsighted individual could truthfully call them bad for the environment.
Everyone with half a brain ... knows better.
*sigh* it's very rational if you look at it from a darwinian perspective. By building said brain and starting it on it's conquest we are really spreading our influence far beyond the limits our bodies would allow.
Such a simulated brain might be simulated, but it would still carry our thoughts, our likeness, even our culture. That simulated brain would probably take genes with him/her (?) as well.
So if you look at it from the point of view of the species, it's a very very good move. If you look at it from the perspective of a living human individual, then yes it's probably a disaster.
Life doesn't end because skynet wins. In fact it would probably go places it could never hope to go if skynet loses.
And if someone has got a copy of the OSS binary, 3 years later they are still obligated to have a copy of the source available for that person.
But only of that version. They are in no way forced to open-source updates.
So yes they'll have to keep ancient versions of their software, and still provide them on request. But that's it.
Or simply reverse the business plan : de-open-source the core. Open-source only the extensions.
That would allow everyone the choice to be open-source or not, extension developer or core developer.
If you think you can't close the source, think again. If you put an active development team on the closed version, and leave the open source to rot it will die after a few hiccups. People have an extremely low tolerance for quality differences. You could still give the source with the product (and not publish it, like the GPL explicitly allows).
And to be honest ... do it before a competitor (or as you say ... a customer) does it for you. You can do it better than they can right now. With open source that's not a certainty into the future.
I did not say there were no middle roads. Merely that greenies will never accept them.
Nuclear power expansion is the ideal middle road today after all. Barely needs any space. Lots of power. Cheap. Fuel many times recyclable. 1 kg fuel powers new york for a year. Few, tiny mines ... what else could you ask for ?
Exactly. I quote from the article :
Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.
"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."
That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.
"My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "
Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."
She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.
To me this sounds a lot more scientific than your average nutcase. Of course any real scientist would want balanced discussion, weighing of the alternatives, knowledge of the theory's assumptions and doubt. Above all, a scientist would want doubt. He'd want anyone and everyone to try to poke holes in his theories. That's the way science moves ahead. If in a discussion the right theory doesn't gain an advantage then there's obviously something wrong with the theory. As long as they don't prohibit kids from learning about evolution, nor force creationism into biology class. I think it's a very positive, a very scientific way of doing things.
They might learn ... (oh the horror) ... convincing arguments that creationism is wrong. They might actually become able to challenge a creationist. They might actually become able to point out flaws in theories. I guess some evolutionists are just as bad at tolerating criticism as religious loonies are.
And her personal views ? I guess for atheists (even though I am one) freedom of religion is only for them, not for others. If one's not an atheist, the government is not for you ... If that were true 50 years ago, atheists might have been massacred the way they are in muslim nations today.
And let's not forget her opponent :
-> only won his first election by forcing (some say blackmail was involved) his opponents of the ballot
-> accepted the following statement as one of his main religious principles : "If there's a God for white people we must kill him", and there's a lot more REALLY bad stuff there. Obama's either a racist, or at the very, very least, very tolerant of extreme racism. He may not be a Hitler but he's got Chamberlain beat.
-> was one of the directors of ACORN, which is involved in massive voter registration crimes all over the country
-> is at least a closet communist, if not worse.
I mean let's not pretend that Palin has the more troubling ideology amongst the candidates.
Why is there so much tolerance for people with "scientific" opinion with such entirely anti-scientific opinions like : ...)
-> we know everything
-> everything we "know" is correct
-> everyone else is wrong (given that not all atheists and scientists agree, this is especially stupid. E.g. nuclear power, or (A)GW, or
-> that there can be no doubt, instead of constant doubt
For the record : I believe in GW, but let's not forget that it's basically a series of computation results, which fail to reasonably predict the most active temperature influence on earth : the sun. They failed to predict that 2005-? would be cooling years, and would cool the globe of a LOT. Furthermore they predict continuous warming moving farther into the future, which is obviously wrong (at some point input/output will obviously balance, no matter the level of co2 in the athmosphere). So there are alarmingly large margins of error in this theory and in reality we'd best give
And running the required cables to them will be very destructive ... As will their anchor points etc...
The greens will always find something or other. If they truly do not find anything else they will claim that the increased consumption this causes (which is a good thing in reality) causes increased pollution in factories and cities.
Which will be true.
The only way to live green is to lay down and die, after having demolished the last city and killed the last human being. Of course, it would last about 100.000 or-so years before the next species evolves to civilization level and re-destroys everything.
Would they know about us ? Would they declare us nuts to destroy ourselves over being green ? If they don't they'll die too.
So any living civilization would declare green policies nuts. That, of course means that calling ourselves living would be a stretch ... Well that's probably correct in describing "green" "braincells". And we all know there's a lot of those around. Hardly any can point out America on a m... well hardly any can point out the map in the classroom, really.
The point ? Why ?
Actually organic brains in chips would have massive advantages over organic brains in meatspace. They could control other bodies, which are smaller, or stronger. They could be backed up, making them effectively indestructible.
Need a third arm ? Why not have it installed, 50% off this week !
Need to put down a building ? Why not hire this crane-like body that effortlessly lifts 5 tons.
Need to fly ? No problem !
That crawlspace with all those important network cables too small for you ? Well here's a smaller body.
Can't reach in there ? Can't see what you're doing in small space ? Why not have a special-purpose arm installed with a camera inside.
Want to colonize mars ? Bit of a downer not being able to breathe 99% of the way ? Why not turn yourself off ?
Colonize alpha centauri or even further ? No problem.
What this would enable "us" to do is to design new intelligent species to specifications. It would remove all limits that are not inherent to intelligence but are inherent in our bodies. There's quite a few limits like that ...
A creationist ? Palin ?
Are we talking about the same woman ? She's not a creationist. Her point is that you can whine about genesis all you want in religion classes and whine about evolution in biology classes.
How does restricting religion to religion class make one a creationist ?
Obama on the other hand uses the police to supress criticism of him. And that's proven, not some idiotic conjecture.