That denies science itself, and the fact that all theories (and they are -precisely- named that) are permanently open to revision based on new empirical data.
He decided to resign from his permanent position at the Carnegie Institute of Washington on the principle of "whether scientists could follow new lines of investigation, and follow up... on evidence which apparently contradicted the current theorems and the current paradigms."
There is no objective physical indicator for delineating a species transition. Science will never offer you one, and never will be able to.
Of more concern is having a proposed mechanism to differentiate yourself meaningfully not simply from Neanderthals, but from animals in general.
Are you a Philosophical (as contrasted from Methodological) Naturalist (broadly, "atheist")? Were Neanderthals human?
Minor question, overall, as I don't grant you the status of "human" -now-. Why? Because your worldview offers no basis for you to claim any special status for your particular DNA permutation, and in a generous attempt to "respect how you self-identify" in fine P.C. tradition. I won't argue your insistence that you have no reason to consider you to have anything like "rights" in contrast to other DNA.
Enjoy your world of "only science exists". I'll be listening to some Led Zeppelin, even though any claims to their (or any other musicians') quality of music are undemonstrable by science, and therefore by some standards (particularly those of Dawkins sycophants) "unscientific". And by followup equivalent equivocation, such aesthetic quality does not exist.
Who says evolution lacks a sense of irony? Enjoy your 0% survival rate.
Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same."
You're conflating "our" abstract interests with Google stockholder interests.
I'll leave aside the question of how specifically Google's data mining will "uplift" these countries. I'll even leave aside the question of how companies in general will do so.
The Marshall Plan actually "uplifted" countries devastated by World War Two. Companies did not volunteer to absorb these costs. This was not accomplished by the notion of "maximize our profits coming from your bombed out cities and crushed economies". It was done by providing help that was not profit maximized.
What is the maximizing stockholder wealth justification for "solving global problems like poverty and disease"?
As much as tech companies may want to be a new religion, they aren't. The incentive models of capitalism support a limited scope of activity effectively.
At least Bill Gates is honest in this regard--charitable focus requires an organizational structure supporting that. Corporate virtue signaling and technological handwaving aren't it.
Quite true of Naturalistic Evolution--"advancement" is meaningless. Some DNA permutations are living (for a while), others are not. No further distinctions of "better" are meaningful within that context.
Not true however of Theistic Evolution. Within that context Teleology, notions of "purpose" or "goal", can be integrated.
No, just logic you can never escape, as required inference from your own premises.
But maybe you'll be philosophically clueless enough to demand I materially demonstrate the existence of "logic" as well.
I'll demonstrate exhaustively, when most convenient to me.
Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.
--Thomas
Wake me when material reductionism derived Actual Intelligence puts anything on the scoreboard.
Slashdot Mirror
Work on the basic definition of science first, then we'll get into basic logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks.
Thomas Kuhn would be a good place to start.
You need to start simple, clearly.
There is no such thing as "settled science".
That denies science itself, and the fact that all theories (and they are -precisely- named that) are permanently open to revision based on new empirical data.
He decided to resign from his permanent position at the Carnegie Institute of Washington on the principle of "whether scientists could follow new lines of investigation, and follow up... on evidence which apparently contradicted the current theorems and the current paradigms."
Of course you can't.
Just ask Michael Behe.
Altered Carbon has a much more interesting notion of a "sleeve".
Solve for the latter, you solve for the former.
Addendum for theists (the rest will not perceive relevance):
Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes."
--Thomas
...for you.
Much of the numbers here depends on how you classify "hominids".
If you can hurry up and define yourself as an animal or not "for the record", I'd appreciate it.
If have future "staffing" plans to make. Thanks Linnaeus!
Now the "mark on your forehead" doesn't even require opt-in.
Can I talk to them now?
Wait, schedule's a bit busy. Line one up for me to talk to 120 years from now. Of the ones that are left as of right now, I mean.
No, I just went ahead and solved the issue with an approach that works.
Don't assume your context is everyone's. That's epistemologically invalid.
Spoiler alert: You die anyway.
"Wretched is the body which depends on a body, and wretched is the soul which depends on these two."
I'll be getting the optimal implementation from the Designer, long before this random kluge gets to beta with a pathetic subset of functionality.
(Or am I missing something here?)
You're missing that "species" is arbitrary, but conceptually unavoidable.
Species problem
There is no objective physical indicator for delineating a species transition. Science will never offer you one, and never will be able to.
Of more concern is having a proposed mechanism to differentiate yourself meaningfully not simply from Neanderthals, but from animals in general.
Are you a Philosophical (as contrasted from Methodological) Naturalist (broadly, "atheist")? Were Neanderthals human?
Minor question, overall, as I don't grant you the status of "human" -now-. Why? Because your worldview offers no basis for you to claim any special status for your particular DNA permutation, and in a generous attempt to "respect how you self-identify" in fine P.C. tradition. I won't argue your insistence that you have no reason to consider you to have anything like "rights" in contrast to other DNA.
Enjoy your world of "only science exists". I'll be listening to some Led Zeppelin, even though any claims to their (or any other musicians') quality of music are undemonstrable by science, and therefore by some standards (particularly those of Dawkins sycophants) "unscientific". And by followup equivalent equivocation, such aesthetic quality does not exist.
Who says evolution lacks a sense of irony? Enjoy your 0% survival rate.
Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same."
--Thomas
You're conflating "our" abstract interests with Google stockholder interests.
I'll leave aside the question of how specifically Google's data mining will "uplift" these countries. I'll even leave aside the question of how companies in general will do so.
At least until you give me a reason not to consider your position summarily refuted by actual history and practice, with one simple link.
The Marshall Plan actually "uplifted" countries devastated by World War Two. Companies did not volunteer to absorb these costs. This was not accomplished by the notion of "maximize our profits coming from your bombed out cities and crushed economies". It was done by providing help that was not profit maximized.
What is the maximizing stockholder wealth justification for "solving global problems like poverty and disease"?
As much as tech companies may want to be a new religion, they aren't. The incentive models of capitalism support a limited scope of activity effectively.
At least Bill Gates is honest in this regard--charitable focus requires an organizational structure supporting that. Corporate virtue signaling and technological handwaving aren't it.
Quite true of Naturalistic Evolution--"advancement" is meaningless. Some DNA permutations are living (for a while), others are not. No further distinctions of "better" are meaningful within that context.
Not true however of Theistic Evolution. Within that context Teleology, notions of "purpose" or "goal", can be integrated.
It's the permanent implications for you that distracts.
Quiet bot. I'm counting your other 12 Monkeys.
No, just logic you can never escape, as required inference from your own premises. But maybe you'll be philosophically clueless enough to demand I materially demonstrate the existence of "logic" as well. I'll demonstrate exhaustively, when most convenient to me.
Okay, WrongMonkey, I'll pencil you in as my permanent personal bot.
Unless you think either your username or your post or the thread topic or material reality per se gives any basis to treat you as anything more?
Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.
--Thomas
Wake me when material reductionism derived Actual Intelligence puts anything on the scoreboard.
Payable in bananas?
How much, exactly, are hominids to blame for this and what penalties should we apply to individual ones?
(Pauses for cognitive dissonance from conceptually incoherent Linnaean Taxonomy training/brainwashing to set in)
*demographic figures assume Everett Many-Worlds model of universe
Nice of the moon to have evolved to be of such a precise size and relative distance as to so aesthetically occlude the Sun.