Why not wait until they've presented their findings, and then submit an article with more information?
Why? Because we've just had a natural disaster which caused a huge oil shock, that's why. The markets (i.e. the irrational people that operate them) need a message that there's a light at the end of the tunnel.
It is utterly impossible - at this point - to reproduce each and every pattern the brain is looking for.
Add to this the fact that programmers in general tend to inhabit the Asperger's syndrome side of the gene pool. Asperger folks tend to have difficulty discerning emotions from people's facial expressions. A person with the skill to program a facial expression engine is, oddly enough, probably less likely to be able to recognize such expressions with greater subtlety.:)
The experimental animals are unique among mammals in their ability to regrow their heart, toes, joints and tail.
And when cells from the test mouse are injected into ordinary mice, they too acquire the ability to regenerate, the US-based researchers say.
Hmmmm... So, a regenerating mammal can contribute cells (contained in the blood, maybe?) to another mammal and transform it into a regenerator? Sounds awfully familiar...
I can only surmise that for complex creatures, self-regeneration is not only worthless, but is undesirable...
Methinks you surmise too quickly.:) The fact that regeneration has not evolved in complex creatures (that we know of) can only lead us to one conclusion: no creature population has survived long enough in a particular environment to create a present day species. That's it.
Who knows whether a complex creature evolved in the past with this trait, yet was wiped out by environmental factors? (meteor strike, ice age, etc.) Just because the current set of species available for us to study does not contain this particular trait combination does not mean that it isn't possible or even viable.
A scientific paper is just the description of an experiment. An experiment tests a hypothesis, which is "guess" based on a theory, or model. The model is never, and I mean NEVER, completely accurate. It can't be, because it's only a mental representation of the physical phenomenon, and is not equal to the phenomenon.
So, by the very definition of empiricism and the scientific method, all scientific papers are "wrong." They're just different degrees of wrong.
You may laugh, but why not patent human emotions? It's not so far fetched.
Take the hormone oxytocin, for example. What if a synthetic variant is created and patented that provokes a certain emotional response? Would that response also be patented?
What was that thing called in Java? JNI? Yeah, that was it.
Oh, right. I guess next you'll argue that opening up a shell and launching another app from Java is also a security risk.
'cause that's basically what you're doing with the JNI. It's just a bit fancier.
And, did you know that when you copy data back from native code execution, you've got to go through all of the standard security checks, bounds checking, etc.? And, way before that, loading of the native library is subject to approval by the SecurityManager?
Ah, but you wouldn't care about those little details. You're a.NET jockey, right?
It reduces crime for approximately two million individuals per year.
I'm sorry bubba, but the level of proof between the "concealed carry laws reduce crime" assertion and the "effective law enforcement reduces crime" assertion are not comparable. End of story.
Look, I live in Texas. I could carry a gun if I wanted to. I love to shoot shit. It's fun. I've also never been a victim of a violent crime, and I've lived in Dallas all of my life, lots of it in the roughest areas. (Dallas has the highest murder rate in the nation, and is very high on other violent and property crimes.) Carrying a gun will only make you stupid and get you into trouble. You want to avoid crime? Don't be stupid and keep your eyes open.
911, however, does nothing to reduce crime-- nor is it meant to.
Right. Being able to summon police to the scene of a crime does not stop crime. Being able to inform police of a crime in progress would never help to stop that crime. Sure.
I don't care if it bothers other people. They have no right to be in my busines
Cool. So if you get "in my business" by cutting me off on the road in your SUV, you won't mind me getting "in your business" by shooting out your tires? That's the libertarian way, after all.
I live in Texas. We handle things differently here.
Now, how is evolution and intelligence linked? You'll have to clarify that, as you left it a bit vague.
That's because it's a vague idea.:) I really don't think it'll have much meat behind it for quite a while, anywhere from decades to centuries. Doesn't mean we shouldn't muddle through it, though. I think science is just about to the "blind men feeling up the elephant" stage in describing it.
Flour led to bread, but that doesn't make Bread flour.
Flour->Bread is not a self referential system like evolution. How is evolution self referential? The organisms that evolve change the environment in which they evolve, changing the fores that shape evolution. Put that in your oven and bake it.
Evolution is the proccess of these random mutations...
Here's where you need some education. Evolution is not just a series of random events. Some randomness is involved, of course, but it is not the end of the story. Organisms perform actions. These actions modify A) the probability of their passing genes on to the next generation, and B) the environment in which other organisms live and take their own actions. It's the B part you're missing.
Let me ask you these fundamental questions: A collection of cells can be intelligent, yes? Why not a collection of single celled organisms? Why not a collection of multicellular organisms? Why not a collection of higher order organisms?
By serves no purpose, I meant could not be proven or disproven, therefore is not a scientific theory.
That's a cop out. Yes, the way ID states it's core assertions, they cannot be disproven. That doesn't mean that the idea itself, that there may be intelligence of some sort associated with evolution, cannot be stated in another way that can be disproven.
You asked before for me to clarify how evolution and intelligence is linked. I'd say, that is the next big "missing link" question. This missing link will be far more difficult to find than just searching the fossil record. Just as the last missing link question could not be denied, neither can this one.
Why should we take on "done by an Invisible Wizard In The Sky" (IWITS) to the end of Evolution?
That's not what I'm advocating. What I am saying is that evolution and intelligence are linked. This is self evident if you assert that evolution created us, intelligent beings. All I'm saying is that, if you accept that evolution can create intelligence it is not that far of a stretch to accept that evolution could be itself intelligent. If we are actors in the evolutionary process (and I challenge you to say that we are not) then this is already the case. We are intelligent agents of evolution.
And, purpose is not the aim of science. To disregard an idea because "it serves no purpose" has no place in a scientific debate.
There's little doubt that the conservatives are at war with science. From evolution to stem cell research to global warming, they're so radical that the Pentagon is to the LEFT of them on these issues. Remarkable!
And, you may find it dubious to say that the Pentagon supports evolutionary theory, but believe me, they do. Just search for all of the DARPA funded projects that use genetic algorithms and genetic programming.
The Pentagon is absolutely correct that our national security is at risk due to our lowering quality science education. That, combined with folks on the conservative side prefering to question science rather than study it, could destroy our ability to develop new technologies. It's like the religious fundies are taking the hippie route: science isn't cool, man! It oppresses us! Don't do it, man!
Whoda thunk it? Right wing conservative christian hippies!:)
Intelligent Design does have a place in the Evolution debate, no doubt in my mind. After all, intelligence itself is a part of Evolution. This is the case even taking a strict Evolutionist viewpoint. After all, evolution created us, an intelligent being.
Given that, isn't it possible that evolution itself could be an intelligent process? If evolution can create intelligence, couldn't it potentially become intelligent?
Don't get me wrong. I see the current use of Intelligent Design as a perversion of the concept, a crass political hijacking of a valid line of thought. It should be persued, just not in that way.
Evolution and ID should be combined, not in conflict.
Finally, Bush does not say that only Intelligent Design should be taught; he advocates for contrasting ideas to be presented to school children...
Yes, similar to how he says there needs to be "more study, more debate" about global warming. All this while average yearly temperatures are going up, hurricanes are getting stronger, Greenland glaciers are moving 130x faster, Antarctic ice shelves are crubmling, etc.
This is a common tactic of the right wing: talk about "open ideas" when you want to cloud the issues and stall.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not wait until they've presented their findings, and then submit an article with more information?
Why? Because we've just had a natural disaster which caused a huge oil shock, that's why. The markets (i.e. the irrational people that operate them) need a message that there's a light at the end of the tunnel.
It is utterly impossible - at this point - to reproduce each and every pattern the brain is looking for.
:)
Add to this the fact that programmers in general tend to inhabit the Asperger's syndrome side of the gene pool. Asperger folks tend to have difficulty discerning emotions from people's facial expressions. A person with the skill to program a facial expression engine is, oddly enough, probably less likely to be able to recognize such expressions with greater subtlety.
The experimental animals are unique among mammals in their ability to regrow their heart, toes, joints and tail.
And when cells from the test mouse are injected into ordinary mice, they too acquire the ability to regenerate, the US-based researchers say.
Hmmmm... So, a regenerating mammal can contribute cells (contained in the blood, maybe?) to another mammal and transform it into a regenerator? Sounds awfully familiar...
I can only surmise that for complex creatures, self-regeneration is not only worthless, but is undesirable...
:) The fact that regeneration has not evolved in complex creatures (that we know of) can only lead us to one conclusion: no creature population has survived long enough in a particular environment to create a present day species. That's it.
Methinks you surmise too quickly.
Who knows whether a complex creature evolved in the past with this trait, yet was wiped out by environmental factors? (meteor strike, ice age, etc.) Just because the current set of species available for us to study does not contain this particular trait combination does not mean that it isn't possible or even viable.
They're all wrong.
A scientific paper is just the description of an experiment. An experiment tests a hypothesis, which is "guess" based on a theory, or model. The model is never, and I mean NEVER, completely accurate. It can't be, because it's only a mental representation of the physical phenomenon, and is not equal to the phenomenon.
So, by the very definition of empiricism and the scientific method, all scientific papers are "wrong." They're just different degrees of wrong.
Get over it.
You may laugh, but why not patent human emotions? It's not so far fetched.
Take the hormone oxytocin, for example. What if a synthetic variant is created and patented that provokes a certain emotional response? Would that response also be patented?
Why isn't there a recall?
What was that thing called in Java? JNI? Yeah, that was it.
.NET jockey, right?
Oh, right. I guess next you'll argue that opening up a shell and launching another app from Java is also a security risk.
'cause that's basically what you're doing with the JNI. It's just a bit fancier.
And, did you know that when you copy data back from native code execution, you've got to go through all of the standard security checks, bounds checking, etc.? And, way before that, loading of the native library is subject to approval by the SecurityManager?
Ah, but you wouldn't care about those little details. You're a
As far as I can tell, the authors of the study fail to mention that .NET can define "unsafe" code blocks.
Or, as I like to call them, "Please Fuck Me Up The Ass" code blocks.
evolutionists have no opinion on god from a scientific point of view.
:)
For now. But I think evolution will be the best way, in the next few centuries, to come about as close to god as science can take us.
True, science cannot take us directly to god. The function 1/x x->infinitiy cannot take you to 0. It can go arbitrarily close, though.
It reduces crime for approximately two million individuals per year.
I'm sorry bubba, but the level of proof between the "concealed carry laws reduce crime" assertion and the "effective law enforcement reduces crime" assertion are not comparable. End of story.
Look, I live in Texas. I could carry a gun if I wanted to. I love to shoot shit. It's fun. I've also never been a victim of a violent crime, and I've lived in Dallas all of my life, lots of it in the roughest areas. (Dallas has the highest murder rate in the nation, and is very high on other violent and property crimes.) Carrying a gun will only make you stupid and get you into trouble. You want to avoid crime? Don't be stupid and keep your eyes open.
911, however, does nothing to reduce crime-- nor is it meant to.
Right. Being able to summon police to the scene of a crime does not stop crime. Being able to inform police of a crime in progress would never help to stop that crime. Sure.
Are you a fucking idiot?
We approved concealed carry, because 911 is NOT working.
You mean you approved your pet conservative cause that is not proven to reduce crime because you won't pay for the services that are?
I don't care if it bothers other people. They have no right to be in my busines
Cool. So if you get "in my business" by cutting me off on the road in your SUV, you won't mind me getting "in your business" by shooting out your tires? That's the libertarian way, after all.
I live in Texas. We handle things differently here.
The authors should live the lifestyle they deserve based on the amount of skill, training, experience and hard work they apply.
The fact that software patents, as they are now being used, make this essentially impossible seems to escape you.
Now, how is evolution and intelligence linked? You'll have to clarify that, as you left it a bit vague.
:) I really don't think it'll have much meat behind it for quite a while, anywhere from decades to centuries. Doesn't mean we shouldn't muddle through it, though. I think science is just about to the "blind men feeling up the elephant" stage in describing it.
That's because it's a vague idea.
Flour led to bread, but that doesn't make Bread flour.
Flour->Bread is not a self referential system like evolution. How is evolution self referential? The organisms that evolve change the environment in which they evolve, changing the fores that shape evolution. Put that in your oven and bake it.
Evolution is the proccess of these random mutations...
Here's where you need some education. Evolution is not just a series of random events. Some randomness is involved, of course, but it is not the end of the story. Organisms perform actions. These actions modify A) the probability of their passing genes on to the next generation, and B) the environment in which other organisms live and take their own actions. It's the B part you're missing.
Let me ask you these fundamental questions: A collection of cells can be intelligent, yes? Why not a collection of single celled organisms? Why not a collection of multicellular organisms? Why not a collection of higher order organisms?
By serves no purpose, I meant could not be proven or disproven, therefore is not a scientific theory.
That's a cop out. Yes, the way ID states it's core assertions, they cannot be disproven. That doesn't mean that the idea itself, that there may be intelligence of some sort associated with evolution, cannot be stated in another way that can be disproven.
You asked before for me to clarify how evolution and intelligence is linked. I'd say, that is the next big "missing link" question. This missing link will be far more difficult to find than just searching the fossil record. Just as the last missing link question could not be denied, neither can this one.
Why should we take on "done by an Invisible Wizard In The Sky" (IWITS) to the end of Evolution?
That's not what I'm advocating. What I am saying is that evolution and intelligence are linked. This is self evident if you assert that evolution created us, intelligent beings. All I'm saying is that, if you accept that evolution can create intelligence it is not that far of a stretch to accept that evolution could be itself intelligent. If we are actors in the evolutionary process (and I challenge you to say that we are not) then this is already the case. We are intelligent agents of evolution.
And, purpose is not the aim of science. To disregard an idea because "it serves no purpose" has no place in a scientific debate.
You, sir, are my new hero. :)
There's little doubt that the conservatives are at war with science. From evolution to stem cell research to global warming, they're so radical that the Pentagon is to the LEFT of them on these issues. Remarkable!
:)
And, you may find it dubious to say that the Pentagon supports evolutionary theory, but believe me, they do. Just search for all of the DARPA funded projects that use genetic algorithms and genetic programming.
And then, of course, there's global warming.
The Pentagon is absolutely correct that our national security is at risk due to our lowering quality science education. That, combined with folks on the conservative side prefering to question science rather than study it, could destroy our ability to develop new technologies. It's like the religious fundies are taking the hippie route: science isn't cool, man! It oppresses us! Don't do it, man!
Whoda thunk it? Right wing conservative christian hippies!
Why not just commission a few screenplays from Stephen Baxter? Great hard SF writer. Sure, he's a brit, but nobody's perfect. :P
Fearmonger. There is still a lot of climate evidence that points to...
:)
Thanks for making my point for me.
Intelligent Design does have a place in the Evolution debate, no doubt in my mind. After all, intelligence itself is a part of Evolution. This is the case even taking a strict Evolutionist viewpoint. After all, evolution created us, an intelligent being.
Given that, isn't it possible that evolution itself could be an intelligent process? If evolution can create intelligence, couldn't it potentially become intelligent?
Don't get me wrong. I see the current use of Intelligent Design as a perversion of the concept, a crass political hijacking of a valid line of thought. It should be persued, just not in that way.
Evolution and ID should be combined, not in conflict.
Really. None. Teh following condition must be met, though:
One Sunday per year, every church in America must let a scientist preach the sermon.
Every church in America must let a Sunday school class be taught in Darwinian science.
Finally, Bush does not say that only Intelligent Design should be taught; he advocates for contrasting ideas to be presented to school children...
Yes, similar to how he says there needs to be "more study, more debate" about global warming. All this while average yearly temperatures are going up, hurricanes are getting stronger, Greenland glaciers are moving 130x faster, Antarctic ice shelves are crubmling, etc.
This is a common tactic of the right wing: talk about "open ideas" when you want to cloud the issues and stall.
How about here?