In 1997, it would have been hell. I don't know if you remember dialup back then, but even a high-end V.34 33.6 would not have been sufficient.
The web, of course, wasn't ready for that kind of application either. You'd have been running IE3 or (if you were leading edge) Netscape Communicator 4. Even on your impressive 166mhz Pentium with 32mb of RAM, javascript performance was absurdly slow. This is to say nothing of the incredible differences between IE and Netscape at the beginning of the great browser wars. If anyone were to have attempted such a thing, it would have undoubtedly been a Java applet simply for speed and compatibility. Let's face it, Java applets were not known for their speed!
A table of images would have taken minutes to load -- no one would dare scroll or zoom. Further, something simple today like "JS overlays" simply wasn't possible. (I'm fairly certain layers and position weren't available until IE4 and a later version of NN4 sometime near the end of 1997). Even then, users would have needed a high-end computer, the latest software, and a lot of patience for something even approaching Google maps.
What did we have in 1997? MapQuest. You typed in your starting location and final destination and got a set of turn-by-turn directions with a few static maps. It was still slow, but far more than sufficient at the time. Something like Google maps would have been significantly slower and, consequently, much less useful.
If you want to define sentience as something other than 'what brains do' you will have to justify it.
Why? That presumption is unjustified. Why would I offer some other unjustified presumption? Why would we prefer one to another?
Isn't it much more sensible to say, simply, "we don't know" to questions to which we have no justifiable answer?
By definition I can also assert without further empiricism that blue is 450–495 nm
Sure, but that's not science either.
I think I see what you're going for with the "fixed by definition" but it's very silly. Consider this bit of nonsense: "By definition, digestion is what the heart does". You'd reject that, obviously, as it's completely unjustified.
You accept the phrase in question here not because it's been established through scientific means, but on a purely metaphysical basis. It's just as foolish as any other reason to accept an unjustified proposition, but far more dangerous as it unjustifiably lends scientific credibility, and distorts the public understanding of science.
Theistic theologians often describe god as a "ground of being", a phrase so meaningless that it cannot be parsed.
Oh, you're thinking of Paul Tillich. A rather famous and influential theologian. His "ground of all being" marks a radical shift in ontology (think: god as a being vs god as the ground of all being). Google the name and I'm sure you'll find a better explanation.
Let's stick to reality, please. Baseless assumptions masquerading as science aren't going to get us anywhere.
Anyhow, let me explain the quote, which you clearly misunderstood:
Why if you are a biological machine, are you also sentient? What's the point of sentience? It is irrelevant to life. Ants and birds might not be sentient, they are just machines running, like plants or trees, so why is there also this odd and unnecessary and frankly, annoying sentience?
The unstated assumption here is that, if you are a biological machine, consciousness is epiphenomenal. As an unavoidable consequence, free will would be illusory. Sentience, necessarily lacking causal efficacy, would be irrelevant to life. It could not contribute, in any way, to survival -- or anything else!
The problem, of course, is that isn't the result of some empirical investigation, That belief is based on metaphysics, not science. The only answer you'll get from science is "we don't know".
"We don't know" is a very important phrase. Let's not do the world a disservice by offering groundless "conclusions" just to avoid it.
That given the social and political state of Bangladesh, the murder was likely to occur anyway as a result of the journalists political views. It's not uncommon for religion to be abused for political reasons, after all. Hence, my suspicions that the religion was used as justification, not as a motive.
Religion is defined exactly as the belief in a sky daddy
That's not true at all. There are religions that don't presuppose a god or similar figure. Buddhism is the typical go-to example, though I'll also offer Raelism as an interesting example along with Jainism and various schools of Hinduism.
which as far as science has shown this far in humanity, doesn't need to exist. Hence to believe in sky daddy means you're rejecting science, or you're ignorant of it.
Even if we accept that science has "shown" that a god concept "doesn't need to exist" (Which is ridiculous, as god and similar concepts are outside the scope of science.) It does not follow that holding such a belief is a rejection of science. Just as there are many pursuits that are outside the scope of science (such as ethics, politics, and law), the practice and study of which do not constitute a rejection of science.
Further, a significant number of practicing scientists are religious. A 2009 survey of AAAS members found that more than half believed in the existence of a god. A more recent survey found that more than a third "have no doubt about God's existence". Are we to assume that our scientific institutions have been overrun by secret anti-science agents?
we have Iman's who say the world doesn't rotate, now how is that anything but a rejection of science?
We have atheists that believe vaccines cause autism, that deny evolution, and similar silly things. Does that make atheism anti-science?
There is a long history of Muslim scientists and many well-respected Muslim scientists practicing today. The Hadith encourages Muslims to seek knowledge "even as far as China". Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, have been actively encouraging science through endowments and the establishment of new universities. If Islam were inherently anti-science, it wouldn't have such a long and proud history of scientific contribution, countless Muslim scientists, or the leadership actively encouraging scientific pursuits. You claimed that Islam teaches that "science must be outlawed at all costs", yet they're spending billions to support science.
Law's are being passed which allow [...]
The mistake in your reasoning here is that you believe religion to be wholly anti-science. This is obviously not true. (See above) While efforts to allow creationism to be taught in schools can be interpreted as anti-science, the other cases you mention (abortion and gay marriage) are not scientific issues, but ethical issues -- which, as you know, are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
So exactly how what is false about this point?
In none of the cases you mention is there an attempt to outlaw science. The best case you offer is an attempt to introduce creationism along side evolution in public schools, which is not the same as trying to outlaw the study of evolution. The claim you made, by the way, was that Islam asserts that "science must be outlawed at all costs".
There have been 0 confirmed miracles, as in none, zip, zilch, notta, 0%, total strike out.
Just for fun: "There have been 0 confirmed black swans, as in none, zip, zilch, notta, 0% total strike out."
Christians can disagree all they want
That's my point entirely. In your post, you explain your interpretation of Christianity through a parody Christain God. "because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles." In context, the claim is that Christians believe that God can't and won't show himself or perform miracles, by his own admission. I suspect that an overwhelming majority of the world's Christians would strongly disagree with that claim and assert that God can and does perform miracles. (Remember: We're talking about what people believe and what you claim people believe. It doesn't matter if those beliefs are
Please, elaborate. What did I take out-of-context?
you cherry picked
I could very easily go on. (Would it make you happy if I continued?) I thought those were sufficient to demonstrate that your post was little more than nonsense born of pure ignorance.
I'll accept this premise just for fun. There's far too much ambiguity to consider it further.
hence anti-science
Science has nothing to say on the subject of magic. It is simply not within the scope of scientific inquiry. You'll also find that many practicing scientists are also religious. A recent survey found more than a third claim to "have no doubt about God’s existence", a surprisingly extreme position. Another found that, among AAAS members, more than half believe in "God or a higher power".
All the same, let's pretend we accept this as well and lament that our scientific institutions have not only been infiltrated, but completely overwhelmed by anti-science agents.
That's causation right there.
How on earth do you get "causation" out of the preceding? I can't even begin to guess what you conclude causes... some other unknown! Even if we accept the previous absurdities, without reservation, this bizarre conclusion simply does not follow.
Theology is the study of religious beliefs and practices. You'll find no shortage of atheist theologians. Or do you mean theology in the sense of a system of beliefs? In that case, you'll find that Islam is not monolithic, but divided along theological lines. Either way, your statement is incoherent.
science must be outlawed at all costs
I can find no branch of Islam that "outlaws" or otherwise forbids science. On the contrary, there are many Muslim scientists practicing today, as well as many historically significant Muslim scientists.
because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles
Many Christians would disagree. I can't find a Christian sect that would affirm that. It's possible one exists, but it would be exceptional, not representative.
it made no sense back in the day and less sense now.
What makes "no sense" is your post. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you're going to have to offer more than nonsense like this to support your position.
I had a Sony Ericsson J300A phone at one point. It was tiny little thing, but fast for the time. Despite the tiny display, it was fine for catching up on the news and other light browsing tasks.
Of course, back then, having a "mobile site" meant something completely different than it does today. I can see the Apple Watch being fine for mobile web use in 2005.
Really? You're going to link to a personal website of a.edu employee to refute the standard dictionary definition of "scientific theory?"
No. I linked to that site because it had a very simple explanation. I thought would be suitable for you as you're clearly unfamiliar with the subject. It would seem we're having two very different discussions.
If you really don't like the link, do a Google search. As I've said before, this is not controversial. Kuhn wrote about this at length in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, as has Hempel in Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Most famously, of course, is Hanson in Patterns of Discovery.
Sigh... I doubt this with help you at all, but it's worth a try. This is the simplest summary I could find: http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb...
I can suggest additional topics and readings, though I don't think you're actually interested.
The problem with autodidacts is that they tend to focus only on a few small areas, ignoring ancillary topics they find uninteresting or to lessen the importance of topics they find difficult or that challenge their preconceptions.
As far as "basic science" goes, you don't even have a theory before you do the experiment.
Wow, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
I don't even know where to begin explaining basic science to someone so hopelessly misguided. I'd normally suggest some readings to clarify some misconception, but I can't even begin to guess how you came to such an absurd understanding.
It is rather LOL-funny the beliefs of the Sciencey Slashdotters.
I don't find it funny at all. It makes me very sad. Non-credentialed science cheerleaders, like yourself, have done little other than harm to the public understanding of science.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make up any old nonsense. It's what he does most of the time.
In 1997, it would have been hell. I don't know if you remember dialup back then, but even a high-end V.34 33.6 would not have been sufficient.
The web, of course, wasn't ready for that kind of application either. You'd have been running IE3 or (if you were leading edge) Netscape Communicator 4. Even on your impressive 166mhz Pentium with 32mb of RAM, javascript performance was absurdly slow. This is to say nothing of the incredible differences between IE and Netscape at the beginning of the great browser wars. If anyone were to have attempted such a thing, it would have undoubtedly been a Java applet simply for speed and compatibility. Let's face it, Java applets were not known for their speed!
A table of images would have taken minutes to load -- no one would dare scroll or zoom. Further, something simple today like "JS overlays" simply wasn't possible. (I'm fairly certain layers and position weren't available until IE4 and a later version of NN4 sometime near the end of 1997). Even then, users would have needed a high-end computer, the latest software, and a lot of patience for something even approaching Google maps.
What did we have in 1997? MapQuest. You typed in your starting location and final destination and got a set of turn-by-turn directions with a few static maps. It was still slow, but far more than sufficient at the time. Something like Google maps would have been significantly slower and, consequently, much less useful.
If you want to define sentience as something other than 'what brains do' you will have to justify it.
Why? That presumption is unjustified. Why would I offer some other unjustified presumption? Why would we prefer one to another?
Isn't it much more sensible to say, simply, "we don't know" to questions to which we have no justifiable answer?
By definition I can also assert without further empiricism that blue is 450–495 nm
Sure, but that's not science either.
I think I see what you're going for with the "fixed by definition" but it's very silly. Consider this bit of nonsense: "By definition, digestion is what the heart does". You'd reject that, obviously, as it's completely unjustified.
You accept the phrase in question here not because it's been established through scientific means, but on a purely metaphysical basis. It's just as foolish as any other reason to accept an unjustified proposition, but far more dangerous as it unjustifiably lends scientific credibility, and distorts the public understanding of science.
Theistic theologians often describe god as a "ground of being", a phrase so meaningless that it cannot be parsed.
Oh, you're thinking of Paul Tillich. A rather famous and influential theologian. His "ground of all being" marks a radical shift in ontology (think: god as a being vs god as the ground of all being). Google the name and I'm sure you'll find a better explanation.
Fun fact: Tillich was an atheist.
Sentience is what you get if you
Let's stick to reality, please. Baseless assumptions masquerading as science aren't going to get us anywhere. Anyhow, let me explain the quote, which you clearly misunderstood:
Why if you are a biological machine, are you also sentient? What's the point of sentience? It is irrelevant to life. Ants and birds might not be sentient, they are just machines running, like plants or trees, so why is there also this odd and unnecessary and frankly, annoying sentience?
The unstated assumption here is that, if you are a biological machine, consciousness is epiphenomenal. As an unavoidable consequence, free will would be illusory. Sentience, necessarily lacking causal efficacy, would be irrelevant to life. It could not contribute, in any way, to survival -- or anything else!
Sentience is just what brains do.
The problem, of course, is that isn't the result of some empirical investigation, That belief is based on metaphysics, not science. The only answer you'll get from science is "we don't know". "We don't know" is a very important phrase. Let's not do the world a disservice by offering groundless "conclusions" just to avoid it.
But if you think this murder would have happened independent of religion, then I'm afraid I can't buy that.
I understand. Ideology is difficult to overcome. Hopefully, with time, you'll come to see reason.
You were saying?
That given the social and political state of Bangladesh, the murder was likely to occur anyway as a result of the journalists political views. It's not uncommon for religion to be abused for political reasons, after all. Hence, my suspicions that the religion was used as justification, not as a motive.
Hefazat-e-Islam, publicly sought the execution of atheists who organised mass protests against the rise of political Islam.
I'm going to assume religion is very much a factor here.
Even though there is a clear political motive?
Well, there was that nasty bit during French Revolution.
It's Bangladesh. I suspect that the slated religious differences were just ad hoc justification for a murder that would have occurred otherwise.
Nerds older that you, I suppose.
Religion is defined exactly as the belief in a sky daddy
That's not true at all. There are religions that don't presuppose a god or similar figure. Buddhism is the typical go-to example, though I'll also offer Raelism as an interesting example along with Jainism and various schools of Hinduism.
which as far as science has shown this far in humanity, doesn't need to exist. Hence to believe in sky daddy means you're rejecting science, or you're ignorant of it.
Even if we accept that science has "shown" that a god concept "doesn't need to exist" (Which is ridiculous, as god and similar concepts are outside the scope of science.) It does not follow that holding such a belief is a rejection of science. Just as there are many pursuits that are outside the scope of science (such as ethics, politics, and law), the practice and study of which do not constitute a rejection of science.
Further, a significant number of practicing scientists are religious. A 2009 survey of AAAS members found that more than half believed in the existence of a god. A more recent survey found that more than a third "have no doubt about God's existence". Are we to assume that our scientific institutions have been overrun by secret anti-science agents?
we have Iman's who say the world doesn't rotate, now how is that anything but a rejection of science?
We have atheists that believe vaccines cause autism, that deny evolution, and similar silly things. Does that make atheism anti-science?
There is a long history of Muslim scientists and many well-respected Muslim scientists practicing today. The Hadith encourages Muslims to seek knowledge "even as far as China". Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, have been actively encouraging science through endowments and the establishment of new universities. If Islam were inherently anti-science, it wouldn't have such a long and proud history of scientific contribution, countless Muslim scientists, or the leadership actively encouraging scientific pursuits. You claimed that Islam teaches that "science must be outlawed at all costs", yet they're spending billions to support science.
Law's are being passed which allow [...]
The mistake in your reasoning here is that you believe religion to be wholly anti-science. This is obviously not true. (See above) While efforts to allow creationism to be taught in schools can be interpreted as anti-science, the other cases you mention (abortion and gay marriage) are not scientific issues, but ethical issues -- which, as you know, are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
So exactly how what is false about this point?
In none of the cases you mention is there an attempt to outlaw science. The best case you offer is an attempt to introduce creationism along side evolution in public schools, which is not the same as trying to outlaw the study of evolution. The claim you made, by the way, was that Islam asserts that "science must be outlawed at all costs".
There have been 0 confirmed miracles, as in none, zip, zilch, notta, 0%, total strike out.
Just for fun: "There have been 0 confirmed black swans, as in none, zip, zilch, notta, 0% total strike out."
Christians can disagree all they want
That's my point entirely. In your post, you explain your interpretation of Christianity through a parody Christain God. "because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles." In context, the claim is that Christians believe that God can't and won't show himself or perform miracles, by his own admission. I suspect that an overwhelming majority of the world's Christians would strongly disagree with that claim and assert that God can and does perform miracles. (Remember: We're talking about what people believe and what you claim people believe. It doesn't matter if those beliefs are
out of context sections
Please, elaborate. What did I take out-of-context?
you cherry picked
I could very easily go on. (Would it make you happy if I continued?) I thought those were sufficient to demonstrate that your post was little more than nonsense born of pure ignorance.
Insightful? It's completely incoherent!
Belief in religion is belief in magic
I'll accept this premise just for fun. There's far too much ambiguity to consider it further.
hence anti-science
Science has nothing to say on the subject of magic. It is simply not within the scope of scientific inquiry. You'll also find that many practicing scientists are also religious. A recent survey found more than a third claim to "have no doubt about God’s existence", a surprisingly extreme position. Another found that, among AAAS members, more than half believe in "God or a higher power".
All the same, let's pretend we accept this as well and lament that our scientific institutions have not only been infiltrated, but completely overwhelmed by anti-science agents.
That's causation right there.
How on earth do you get "causation" out of the preceding? I can't even begin to guess what you conclude causes ... some other unknown! Even if we accept the previous absurdities, without reservation, this bizarre conclusion simply does not follow.
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
That's completely delusional.
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
Theology is the study of religious beliefs and practices. You'll find no shortage of atheist theologians. Or do you mean theology in the sense of a system of beliefs? In that case, you'll find that Islam is not monolithic, but divided along theological lines. Either way, your statement is incoherent.
science must be outlawed at all costs
I can find no branch of Islam that "outlaws" or otherwise forbids science. On the contrary, there are many Muslim scientists practicing today, as well as many historically significant Muslim scientists.
because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles
Many Christians would disagree. I can't find a Christian sect that would affirm that. It's possible one exists, but it would be exceptional, not representative.
it made no sense back in the day and less sense now.
What makes "no sense" is your post. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you're going to have to offer more than nonsense like this to support your position.
Maybe. But VB developers were really inexpensive. If you found a good one, they were crazy productive as well.
You sound addicted to video games and porn.
It means to speak or act without restraint: "Man, I really broke bad last night ... woke up in jail"
I had a Sony Ericsson J300A phone at one point. It was tiny little thing, but fast for the time. Despite the tiny display, it was fine for catching up on the news and other light browsing tasks.
Of course, back then, having a "mobile site" meant something completely different than it does today. I can see the Apple Watch being fine for mobile web use in 2005.
Really? You're going to link to a personal website of a .edu employee to refute the standard dictionary definition of "scientific theory?"
No. I linked to that site because it had a very simple explanation. I thought would be suitable for you as you're clearly unfamiliar with the subject. It would seem we're having two very different discussions.
If you really don't like the link, do a Google search. As I've said before, this is not controversial. Kuhn wrote about this at length in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, as has Hempel in Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Most famously, of course, is Hanson in Patterns of Discovery.
Sigh... I doubt this with help you at all, but it's worth a try. This is the simplest summary I could find:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb...
I can suggest additional topics and readings, though I don't think you're actually interested.
The problem with autodidacts is that they tend to focus only on a few small areas, ignoring ancillary topics they find uninteresting or to lessen the importance of topics they find difficult or that challenge their preconceptions.
I think I'll stick with a proper formal education. For obvious reasons.
As far as "basic science" goes, you don't even have a theory before you do the experiment.
Wow, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
I don't even know where to begin explaining basic science to someone so hopelessly misguided. I'd normally suggest some readings to clarify some misconception, but I can't even begin to guess how you came to such an absurd understanding.
It is rather LOL-funny the beliefs of the Sciencey Slashdotters.
I don't find it funny at all. It makes me very sad. Non-credentialed science cheerleaders, like yourself, have done little other than harm to the public understanding of science.
You're causing harm. Please stop.
No, the experiment is the free-standing truth
I'm sorry, but that's simply delusional. All observation is theory-dependent. This is not controversial, it's basic science.