You can't really separate a living things' existence from its ancestors like that. It's like if you had a child in a room by themselves and went "HA, HUMANITY ISN'T SOCIAL CREATURES."
I was mocking biblical archeologists, finding "boats" on "mountains" and declaring them proof of the story we know by a lot of different ways didn't happen, without even a hint of consideration for the previous "finds" of the same thing.
There is such a thing as perfect replication... say... in the context of software, or so near that evolution is impossible.
You send the bits, you send them in an error correcting code format. You send a checksum as well. And you send them on a channel that's designed to completely fail if the noise is sufficient to cause errors, the entire message fails.
The number of bits that have been sent this way over the internet this way are over quadrillions, and the numbers of errors that wouldn't be caught by a trivial checksum are zero.
A self-replicating worm on the internet doesn't evolve or adapt. And thus none of them are still around.
I'd actually wager that's true, but mostly from you underestimating 15th century disease mortality, not any sort of substantial overestimation of space travel risk.
Nope, dualism specifically asserts that the thinking goes on in that spirit.
I'm okay with conjecturing any sort of non-interacting component of the universe you want. That's just idle speculation. Dualism, on the other hand, is a strictly invalidated notion.
At some level, some piece of that code is capable of examining cause and effect and describing its conclusions about itself otherwise it wouldn't be able to imitate that part of human behavior.
Whatever code that is, by necessity, is self aware.
All I want to do is get on a giant pile of explosives, accelerate at several G's, go many times the speed of sound, up into a place utterly lacking in oxygen, sit in unfiltered ionizing solar radiation for a few hours, plummet rapidly to the ground, and go home.
You'll whole argument is predicated on the notion that a never-observed phenomenon could be caused by the never-observed interactions of observed phenomena.
It's a bit like saying "a bunch of metal together makes a car, so couldn't all the cars together make a super-car that can drive to another solar system." It's idle conjecture without evidence and with obvious flaws.
It ignores the actual properties of things and asserts a transitive property we have no reason to believe exists.
Familiarity with the history of biblical archeology(how many Noah's Arks have they found now? 12?), translation(hey this version of the inerrant truth means something completely different than this version of the inerrant truth), history, and exegisis is exactly why I dismiss them.
Slashdot Mirror
Start a nuclear war.
You can't really separate a living things' existence from its ancestors like that. It's like if you had a child in a room by themselves and went "HA, HUMANITY ISN'T SOCIAL CREATURES."
(Sorry for making fictional you so shouty)
Uh, yeah. So?
How do you figure?
I was mocking biblical archeologists, finding "boats" on "mountains" and declaring them proof of the story we know by a lot of different ways didn't happen, without even a hint of consideration for the previous "finds" of the same thing.
It doesn't need 100%. It just needs greater odds than the sum total of instances of the duplications that will happen under its current design.
Then *kaput*.
Zuckerburg is looking to kill youtube.
Unfortunately, Google's own social network beat them to the punch.
adblock rule: ##video
Any other problems that can be solved really easily?
Oh no. How ever will a CEO of a fortune 500 company be taken seriously if not by slashdot user kuzb?
Okay, obviously pedantic point completely ceded.
There is such a thing as perfect replication... say... in the context of software, or so near that evolution is impossible.
You send the bits, you send them in an error correcting code format. You send a checksum as well. And you send them on a channel that's designed to completely fail if the noise is sufficient to cause errors, the entire message fails.
The number of bits that have been sent this way over the internet this way are over quadrillions, and the numbers of errors that wouldn't be caught by a trivial checksum are zero.
A self-replicating worm on the internet doesn't evolve or adapt. And thus none of them are still around.
Not quite a fair counter-argument to them.
That falls under the therapeutic category, and they were specifically objecting to the other subcategory of use I mentioned: improvement.
That's like saying "energy and life are essentially inseparable, thus you don't need to include respiration"
Logical equivalence is one of the best things to have in a definition. A->B && B->A means that A defines B.
No, not at all. Response and evolution are distinct.
Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with individual response to individual stimuli.
A self-reproducing system that does so perfectly, with no errors won't ever change, and isn't really alive.
Maybe any introduction to philosophy course that actually fucking covers Descartes?
Like even remotely basic inspection of what backers say?
Any sort of summary of the subject?
I'm sorry you can't imagine someone attacking an idea for what it is?
I've never seen that list without "adaptation". Evolution and life are essentially inseparable.
Inerrancy isn't literalism.
Two distinct concepts, bro.
I'd actually wager that's true, but mostly from you underestimating 15th century disease mortality, not any sort of substantial overestimation of space travel risk.
Nope, dualism specifically asserts that the thinking goes on in that spirit.
I'm okay with conjecturing any sort of non-interacting component of the universe you want. That's just idle speculation. Dualism, on the other hand, is a strictly invalidated notion.
Well, does it want that for itself?
At some level, some piece of that code is capable of examining cause and effect and describing its conclusions about itself otherwise it wouldn't be able to imitate that part of human behavior.
Whatever code that is, by necessity, is self aware.
All I want to do is get on a giant pile of explosives, accelerate at several G's, go many times the speed of sound, up into a place utterly lacking in oxygen, sit in unfiltered ionizing solar radiation for a few hours, plummet rapidly to the ground, and go home.
What's so dangerous about any of that?
I'm pretty sure there's lots of subjective improvements that could be made to my brain.
You'll whole argument is predicated on the notion that a never-observed phenomenon could be caused by the never-observed interactions of observed phenomena.
It's a bit like saying "a bunch of metal together makes a car, so couldn't all the cars together make a super-car that can drive to another solar system." It's idle conjecture without evidence and with obvious flaws.
It ignores the actual properties of things and asserts a transitive property we have no reason to believe exists.
Sort of.
It's not "something" in the sense that you're used to, in that it obeys strict progressions from cause to effect over time, or has point mass.
Ha.
No I don't.
Familiarity with the history of biblical archeology(how many Noah's Arks have they found now? 12?), translation(hey this version of the inerrant truth means something completely different than this version of the inerrant truth), history, and exegisis is exactly why I dismiss them.
You know what? This is an excellent point.
Not looking at what people have to lose pragmatically by not believing is unfair of me.