Nope, you're doing the math wrong because your assumptions are wrong.
EV's will almost universally charge at home while the owner is sleeping, watching his home theater, wishing the spouse was still interested in sex, etc. They will *very* rarely require a charging station outside the home (and some of them never will.) And those homes? They've all *already* got the "charging station"; it's called an AC outlet.
For about $50 in parts you can put in a 220v, 50 amp outlet without challenging most home electrical services, and in that case, you can charge pretty fast. But as long as you charge fast enough to replace a typical day's use, you will have no need for a third-party charging point. For most people, an already existing 15- or 20-amp, 120v outlet will get it done for you overnight.
That's the key: the subset of those 123 million people that have garage or curbside access to their own power systems are already all set unless they want to go state to state to see grandma, that sort of thing. Likely the places we will see lots of chargers, then, is on the interstates and so forth. Be a heck of a selling point for any restaurant accessible from those highways, too.
I also predict service trucks that carry big battery capacities so they can come out and "refill" you where you pulled over, out of electrons.:)
We already have self driving trucks only we call them Trains in the US.
That'd sure be news to my son, an engineer on Burlington-Northern. Trains do not "drive themselves"; they do not control their own switching, their own speed, their own braking, when to go on sidings and when to proceed, or how fast, when to fuel, when to signal at crossings, when and/or how to couple and uncouple... simply put, they're just as far from being self-driving as they were in the 1800's. Which is very, very far. The engineer drives the train. Period.
the public will never allow the trucking industry to have self driving 36 ton missiles with no drivers on our highways.
The public will never have a voice in it. Just like everything else, this matter will be decided by our ruling oligarchy. And seeing as how there is huge profit in the prospect, the outcome is 100% foregone.
as long as students pursue some field of human endeavor, they will benefit.
Fine. But seeing as they don't all do that, a simple coding course in high school -- perhaps replacing the tribal me-better-than-you training of competitive sports -- could serve to at least somewhat uplift those who aren't otherwise particularly motivated. Actual learning of logic and math would likely do the same (and no, I'm not talking about what passes for sufficient math to graduate from high schools these days.)
Look at all the cognitive failure modes we see now, some old, some new: anti-vaxxers, many different kinds of superstition, failure to comprehend the consequences of withholding health care from large segments of the population, rampant jingoism, shaming, all manner of intrusive moralizing...
I'm not saying a basic ability to do coding, handle logic or work math would actually outright solve these things, but good grief, they wouldn't hurt and they might keep some people from stumbling off into all these dark, dead mental corners. Move them away from being dull followers of charismatic liars and at least somewhat towards a mindset that encourages a fact-based outlook.
I look at the twisted society that the government and the corporations have created and my foremost thought is that US citizenry is so, so screwed. Back in the 60's and the 70's, I and my peers fought our battles for the right to vote if you were forced to serve; for women's rights and equality for non-whites, even such things as working against the (then) almost universal careless littering that went on... but I don't see deep social problems of today being addressed by the current generations. It appears that self-directed angst is the primary concern of most of the young people I meet; and when they're not concerned with themselves, they're hip-deep in some form of entertainment. And the downhill slide continues and accelerates.
The lawmakers are nearly 100% in thrall to the rich and powerful; they continuously implement schemes of immense disadvantage to the citizens; the "where are your papers" we used to mock the Nazis and the Soviets for have become our daily experiences; heavily armed stormtroopers break into our homes and pre-emptively shoot our pets, warrants are passe, torture is seriously considered a "good thing" by large segments of the population...
Anything, and I do mean anything, that would help these people to think and in any amount reduce their proclivity to swallow the agitprop whole while begging for another, sir, would be of some kind of service to us all.
So yes, teach coding. Or any other structured, reality-based task that requires real thought and responds poorly to just making crap up.
Yes, it helps when you write their epitaph in the history books.
2. Rationality will not save us
Right, likely what will save us will be weapons, and lots of them, too.
3. There's something beyond oneself
Sure. Other people. Animals. Plants. Maybe even aliens. You bet.
4. Maximize efficiency
This is why I always suggest nuclear weapons. You just can't beat then for dollars spent per enemy decimated.
5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war
Absolutely. 100 for us, 0 for them. 100:0 is a perfectly valid proportion.
6. Get the data
By any means possible. Knowledge is power.
7. Belief and seeing are both often wrong
Through superstition-colored glasses they are.
8. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning
it helps when you rewrite the history books
9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
You knew my second wife!?!?
10. Never say never
Right. Never.
11. You can't change human nature
Again, this is why I suggest nuclear weapons.
12. Slashdot is slower than ever because it does not thync
Slashdot is like every other web site. It has to thync or thwim on its own.
This text exists to up the ratio between characters and HTML formatting elements, which tend to upset slashdot's Kindergarten-level parsing engine. I'll write as much as I need to in order to get the above to post; because what is written above is precisely what I meant to say, and how I meant to say it. This also might be an opportune time to mention that slashdot's Kindergarten-level parser can't handle simple things like HTML lists, HTML character entities, and foreign character sets. Which is really kind of funny, considering that this place is hyped as a "geek site"... no geek worth his slice of (New York) pizza would let code like that out the door. I suppose it kind of goes along with the whole broken moderation system.
So what experience do you have that leads you to be so adamant that typing speed is a major factor in coding?
Not is. Can be.
Among other things, I write majorapplications and libraries, generally in c or c++ these days. I've been at it for about 45 years, coming from an assembler background. I extensively document what I write, both for the user and within the code (you'd have to download the import library to see the docs... the link is just to the cover page.) I also wrote the user documentation system (in Python/SQL) itself. I often produce as fast as I can type (35-40wpm) when coding, and almost all the time when documenting. There is no question in my mind that my productivity would be reduced if my typing speed or accuracy were to be seriously impacted in any way.
In my early career, I worked alongside a lot of very good people, and I can't recall any that were really noticeably similar to one another. IMHO, really good programmers tend to not fit stereotypes very well as they are not only (necessarily) brilliant, but are bringing some kind of broader experience to the table. Later on, I ran a couple of hardware and software companies for about 25 years, producing first for 6809 custom hardware of my design (coin-op arcade industry), then the Amiga and later on software-only for Windows.
During that time, aside from my own work, I hired, directed and supervised many programmers and a small group of hardware engineers as well. I'm well acquainted with various combinations of lines-per-whatever, reliability, and complexity across a pretty good sample of coworkers and employes -- my own observation consequent to this is that there is a very wide range of acceptable performance, and for various reasons, at that. These days I'm retired and spend my time doing AI research, real-time signal processing and image processing applications, working on building an interior into my home with my SO's considerable assistance, and generally whatever else takes my interest. I still write as fast as I can go when I'm writing, chewing up about a keyboard a year. Matias keyboards.
That's my experience. In no way am I suggesting it is, or should be, yours. Just avoid painting me (and by extension, everyone) with your own particular brush and I'll shut up. About this, at least.:)
Typing speed is nearly insignificant in stjobe's coding, and his colleague's.
FTFY, too.:)
See, what you're both missing is that your experience does not translate into everyone else's experience. Your experience is perfectly valid for you. That's fine. But when you cast your arms out to include everyone, and decree that your experience is everyone's experience, you have moved from anecdotal reporting to hallucinatory crazy-talk.
Another is that we really don't know how the body works yet, as evidenced by the (still) constantly shifting winds around cholesterol, fats, vitamins, carbohydrates, breast milk, and so on.
It's also worth keeping in mind that a lot of "official information" (such as the food pyramid, almost anything at all related to the "drug war" and more) is utter nonsense cobbled up for reasons entirely unrelated to your well-being, or lack thereof, and that places ranging from GNC to Walmart have been caught red-handed selling what amounts to sawdust in bottles labeled as various herbs.
It seems to me that the appropriate behavior WRT one's health at this time is moderation in all consumables of interest, avoidance of things your taste or immune system makes clear to you aren't positive experiences for you, while only really staying clear of things that science has actually nailed to the wall as seriously harmful, such as cocaine, tobacco, meth, any addictive substances (there really aren't all that many of these, it isn't much of an inconvenience to avoid them even if you're into drugs as entertainment.) Pay attention to your body's response to things you ingest. It's a simple enough idea, but one a lot of people simply don't take seriously. Drinking enough to ruin your next morning? Might be an important message in that for you...
Get regular exercise -- I'm talking every day -- and don't sit at a desk (or anywhere else) for too long at any one time.
Couple all that with carefully avoiding the legal system (inasmuch as the government spends a great deal of effort trying to turn your personal choices into excuses for jailing you) and you might survive long enough to see science figure out how we actually work -- and I suspect that will arrive at nearly the same time as solutions for the various downsides of this and that.
I have yet to see another reason to use recursion.
I'll give you two problems that yield to recursive approaches very nicely indeed.
The first is pixel-based area fill. The second is the expansion phase of object-oriented PCB trace routing. The third is in the repeated bloom steps of the optimum N-color picker for any >N color space, where N is 16 or more. They're all three very efficient in terms of number of lines, they're quite fast, and they do the job perfectly. You can certainly approach these tasks other ways; but I have yet to see anything as elegant.
These do require an architecture where stack space isn't a problem. Which -- IMHO -- would be any decent architecture out there.
Then comes to mind a remark by an old associate of mine. He would say: "Live recursively... die recursively." I always thought that would make a great t-shirt, if for no other reason than its inherent opacity to the common person.:)
Something can behave intelligently without being intelligent.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that what you are describing here is something that evidences order, not intelligence. At best, these examples exhibit something that can be described from the outside as ordered behavior: a crystal grows according to inherent rules, but it is not doing any self-guiding.
Evidence of intelligence tends to come in the form behaviors more sophisticated, and at the same time, often quite a bit less orderly.:)
Intelligence is not a black/white issue. It's more like a continuum of different levels.
Nonetheless, we know of no case where it has arisen or otherwise exists outside of a supporting consciousness. If you can point to an intelligence, it is a given, at present, that you are also pointing to a consciousness.
The fact that something can exist in various amounts or configurations does not in any way rule out the idea of its complete lack or presence. There are many things that can be accurately described just that way.
Also, somewhat of a separate issue, but interesting... what cogito ergo sum illuminates is not so much that one is conscious, but that one exists at all. Insofar as it relates to consciousness, it is a direct expression of exactly what I stated earlier, with no known exceptions thus far: intelligence is an emergent facet of consciousness. We know of exactly zero cases where the former exists without the latter, and again so far, we have no reason to assume it can.
Hold it right there. We're talking about consciousness. It can certainly be demonstrated. In fact, it's pretty obvious to a moderately interested, well educated observer except within the context of the very smallest nervous systems that support it. We can even switch it on and off with anesthetics in an otherwise healthy animal, and again, it is stunningly obvious when we do so when the subject is a human.
What you are describing when you assert a failure to demonstrate consciousness is an individual failure to grasp reality outside of one's own own perceptions, not any actual lack relating to the subject at hand. It is the source of the angsty childhood...teenage idea that the world actually revolves around them. But the inability to get out of your own head does not equate to the actuality of nothing being outside your head. And that goes just as well for the.. "philosophers" you quote. That kind of simplistic navel-gazing is strictly the domain of those very poorly grounded in reality. It isn't deep thinking. When a human does it, it's stupid thinking -- strictly low performance and pointless beyond a moment's consideration and subsequent discard.
I assure you that consciousness is no trick at all to recognize, and particularly so when it is similar to our own. The most obvious manifestation of consciousness such as ours is the ability to manipulate arbitrary new abstracts in the contexts of one's own future and past, and that of others. The only thing we know of that can demonstrate those abilities is consciousness. The day may come when that is not a unique characteristic of consciousness, but it surely isn't here today.
Wait, what? Failing when confronted with a novel situation isn't very intelligent? Your experience must have been quite different from mine. My life is a story of one failure after another, with successes being the exception rather than the rule. Not so much because I am not intelligent, but because I am. It's true enough that in most cases, my successes outweigh my failures, primarily because I continued to put effort into them, but they certainly aren't as numerous.
Evolution solves problems that occur repeatedly, over many generations. Evolved systems often fail spectacularly when confronted with novel situations.
To the extent that this is true (it isn't always), it is also true of solutions created by human means and intent -- products of our intelligence.
Well, let me put it to you this way: So far, the only examples of intelligence we have spring from conscious entities. If intelligence can be achieved without consciousness, that would be absolutely fascinating. But seeing as there isn't even a hint of such a thing anywhere, it is just an insupportable idea at the moment.
any more than it requires a soul.
"soul" is just code-speak for superstition. Doesn't even belong in this conversation. Consciousness is demonstrable, even just within one's own head. Souls are presently hand-wavy speculation and have never been more than that, plus, scientifically speaking, our present physics solidly rule them out.
Most people agree that "consciousness" is a property of internal state
Nonsense. That is a classic baseless assertion. Most of what I hear -- which I'm not even prepared to say is "most people's outlook" -- is that consciousness is emergent. It doesn't get any other labels because it is a unique thing, not a member of a similar class of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, you're doing the math wrong because your assumptions are wrong.
EV's will almost universally charge at home while the owner is sleeping, watching his home theater, wishing the spouse was still interested in sex, etc. They will *very* rarely require a charging station outside the home (and some of them never will.) And those homes? They've all *already* got the "charging station"; it's called an AC outlet.
For about $50 in parts you can put in a 220v, 50 amp outlet without challenging most home electrical services, and in that case, you can charge pretty fast. But as long as you charge fast enough to replace a typical day's use, you will have no need for a third-party charging point. For most people, an already existing 15- or 20-amp, 120v outlet will get it done for you overnight.
That's the key: the subset of those 123 million people that have garage or curbside access to their own power systems are already all set unless they want to go state to state to see grandma, that sort of thing. Likely the places we will see lots of chargers, then, is on the interstates and so forth. Be a heck of a selling point for any restaurant accessible from those highways, too.
I also predict service trucks that carry big battery capacities so they can come out and "refill" you where you pulled over, out of electrons. :)
Ok, but if you want them to grow up strong, teach them APL.
That'd sure be news to my son, an engineer on Burlington-Northern. Trains do not "drive themselves"; they do not control their own switching, their own speed, their own braking, when to go on sidings and when to proceed, or how fast, when to fuel, when to signal at crossings, when and/or how to couple and uncouple... simply put, they're just as far from being self-driving as they were in the 1800's. Which is very, very far. The engineer drives the train. Period.
The public will never have a voice in it. Just like everything else, this matter will be decided by our ruling oligarchy. And seeing as how there is huge profit in the prospect, the outcome is 100% foregone.
Fine. But seeing as they don't all do that, a simple coding course in high school -- perhaps replacing the tribal me-better-than-you training of competitive sports -- could serve to at least somewhat uplift those who aren't otherwise particularly motivated. Actual learning of logic and math would likely do the same (and no, I'm not talking about what passes for sufficient math to graduate from high schools these days.)
Look at all the cognitive failure modes we see now, some old, some new: anti-vaxxers, many different kinds of superstition, failure to comprehend the consequences of withholding health care from large segments of the population, rampant jingoism, shaming, all manner of intrusive moralizing...
I'm not saying a basic ability to do coding, handle logic or work math would actually outright solve these things, but good grief, they wouldn't hurt and they might keep some people from stumbling off into all these dark, dead mental corners. Move them away from being dull followers of charismatic liars and at least somewhat towards a mindset that encourages a fact-based outlook.
I look at the twisted society that the government and the corporations have created and my foremost thought is that US citizenry is so, so screwed. Back in the 60's and the 70's, I and my peers fought our battles for the right to vote if you were forced to serve; for women's rights and equality for non-whites, even such things as working against the (then) almost universal careless littering that went on... but I don't see deep social problems of today being addressed by the current generations. It appears that self-directed angst is the primary concern of most of the young people I meet; and when they're not concerned with themselves, they're hip-deep in some form of entertainment. And the downhill slide continues and accelerates.
The lawmakers are nearly 100% in thrall to the rich and powerful; they continuously implement schemes of immense disadvantage to the citizens; the "where are your papers" we used to mock the Nazis and the Soviets for have become our daily experiences; heavily armed stormtroopers break into our homes and pre-emptively shoot our pets, warrants are passe, torture is seriously considered a "good thing" by large segments of the population...
Anything, and I do mean anything, that would help these people to think and in any amount reduce their proclivity to swallow the agitprop whole while begging for another, sir, would be of some kind of service to us all.
So yes, teach coding. Or any other structured, reality-based task that requires real thought and responds poorly to just making crap up.
Hmmm, that sounds suspiciously like the corporate behavior I have to watch for every day.
Signed,
Stockholder
Yes, it helps when you write their epitaph in the history books.
Right, likely what will save us will be weapons, and lots of them, too.
Sure. Other people. Animals. Plants. Maybe even aliens. You bet.
This is why I always suggest nuclear weapons. You just can't beat then for dollars spent per enemy decimated.
Absolutely. 100 for us, 0 for them. 100:0 is a perfectly valid proportion.
By any means possible. Knowledge is power.
Through superstition-colored glasses they are.
it helps when you rewrite the history books
You knew my second wife!?!?
Right. Never.
Again, this is why I suggest nuclear weapons.
Slashdot is like every other web site. It has to thync or thwim on its own.
This text exists to up the ratio between characters and HTML formatting elements, which tend to upset slashdot's Kindergarten-level parsing engine. I'll write as much as I need to in order to get the above to post; because what is written above is precisely what I meant to say, and how I meant to say it. This also might be an opportune time to mention that slashdot's Kindergarten-level parser can't handle simple things like HTML lists, HTML character entities, and foreign character sets. Which is really kind of funny, considering that this place is hyped as a "geek site"... no geek worth his slice of (New York) pizza would let code like that out the door. I suppose it kind of goes along with the whole broken moderation system.
Not is. Can be.
Among other things, I write major applications and libraries, generally in c or c++ these days. I've been at it for about 45 years, coming from an assembler background. I extensively document what I write, both for the user and within the code (you'd have to download the import library to see the docs... the link is just to the cover page.) I also wrote the user documentation system (in Python/SQL) itself. I often produce as fast as I can type (35-40wpm) when coding, and almost all the time when documenting. There is no question in my mind that my productivity would be reduced if my typing speed or accuracy were to be seriously impacted in any way.
In my early career, I worked alongside a lot of very good people, and I can't recall any that were really noticeably similar to one another. IMHO, really good programmers tend to not fit stereotypes very well as they are not only (necessarily) brilliant, but are bringing some kind of broader experience to the table. Later on, I ran a couple of hardware and software companies for about 25 years, producing first for 6809 custom hardware of my design (coin-op arcade industry), then the Amiga and later on software-only for Windows.
During that time, aside from my own work, I hired, directed and supervised many programmers and a small group of hardware engineers as well. I'm well acquainted with various combinations of lines-per-whatever, reliability, and complexity across a pretty good sample of coworkers and employes -- my own observation consequent to this is that there is a very wide range of acceptable performance, and for various reasons, at that. These days I'm retired and spend my time doing AI research, real-time signal processing and image processing applications, working on building an interior into my home with my SO's considerable assistance, and generally whatever else takes my interest. I still write as fast as I can go when I'm writing, chewing up about a keyboard a year. Matias keyboards.
That's my experience. In no way am I suggesting it is, or should be, yours. Just avoid painting me (and by extension, everyone) with your own particular brush and I'll shut up. About this, at least. :)
No, he didn't. But let me help you out here:
Typing speed is nearly insignificant in stjobe's coding, and his colleague's.
FTFY, too. :)
See, what you're both missing is that your experience does not translate into everyone else's experience. Your experience is perfectly valid for you. That's fine. But when you cast your arms out to include everyone, and decree that your experience is everyone's experience, you have moved from anecdotal reporting to hallucinatory crazy-talk.
I didn't say a word about touch-typing.
Typing speed is nearly insignificant in GuB-42's coding.
FTFY.
One thing to keep in mind is this observation: There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Another is that we really don't know how the body works yet, as evidenced by the (still) constantly shifting winds around cholesterol, fats, vitamins, carbohydrates, breast milk, and so on.
It's also worth keeping in mind that a lot of "official information" (such as the food pyramid, almost anything at all related to the "drug war" and more) is utter nonsense cobbled up for reasons entirely unrelated to your well-being, or lack thereof, and that places ranging from GNC to Walmart have been caught red-handed selling what amounts to sawdust in bottles labeled as various herbs.
It seems to me that the appropriate behavior WRT one's health at this time is moderation in all consumables of interest, avoidance of things your taste or immune system makes clear to you aren't positive experiences for you, while only really staying clear of things that science has actually nailed to the wall as seriously harmful, such as cocaine, tobacco, meth, any addictive substances (there really aren't all that many of these, it isn't much of an inconvenience to avoid them even if you're into drugs as entertainment.) Pay attention to your body's response to things you ingest. It's a simple enough idea, but one a lot of people simply don't take seriously. Drinking enough to ruin your next morning? Might be an important message in that for you...
Get regular exercise -- I'm talking every day -- and don't sit at a desk (or anywhere else) for too long at any one time.
Couple all that with carefully avoiding the legal system (inasmuch as the government spends a great deal of effort trying to turn your personal choices into excuses for jailing you) and you might survive long enough to see science figure out how we actually work -- and I suspect that will arrive at nearly the same time as solutions for the various downsides of this and that.
Why don't you ask the corporations that pocketed a good chunk of that money?
I think the answer can be found in the interviews. He's responsible, well informed, and brilliant.
Sure, there are writers and they prepare the bits, but I, for one, think Stewart is the heart and soul of it.
We'll see what happens after he's gone -- that'll tell us a lot, too.
No, no. You don't understand how the system works. Let me help you:
It's genius, really.
I'll give you two problems that yield to recursive approaches very nicely indeed.
The first is pixel-based area fill. The second is the expansion phase of object-oriented PCB trace routing. The third is in the repeated bloom steps of the optimum N-color picker for any >N color space, where N is 16 or more. They're all three very efficient in terms of number of lines, they're quite fast, and they do the job perfectly. You can certainly approach these tasks other ways; but I have yet to see anything as elegant.
These do require an architecture where stack space isn't a problem. Which -- IMHO -- would be any decent architecture out there.
Then comes to mind a remark by an old associate of mine. He would say: "Live recursively... die recursively." I always thought that would make a great t-shirt, if for no other reason than its inherent opacity to the common person. :)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that what you are describing here is something that evidences order, not intelligence. At best, these examples exhibit something that can be described from the outside as ordered behavior: a crystal grows according to inherent rules, but it is not doing any self-guiding.
Evidence of intelligence tends to come in the form behaviors more sophisticated, and at the same time, often quite a bit less orderly. :)
Nonetheless, we know of no case where it has arisen or otherwise exists outside of a supporting consciousness. If you can point to an intelligence, it is a given, at present, that you are also pointing to a consciousness.
The fact that something can exist in various amounts or configurations does not in any way rule out the idea of its complete lack or presence. There are many things that can be accurately described just that way.
Also, somewhat of a separate issue, but interesting... what cogito ergo sum illuminates is not so much that one is conscious, but that one exists at all. Insofar as it relates to consciousness, it is a direct expression of exactly what I stated earlier, with no known exceptions thus far: intelligence is an emergent facet of consciousness. We know of exactly zero cases where the former exists without the latter, and again so far, we have no reason to assume it can.
Hold it right there. We're talking about consciousness. It can certainly be demonstrated. In fact, it's pretty obvious to a moderately interested, well educated observer except within the context of the very smallest nervous systems that support it. We can even switch it on and off with anesthetics in an otherwise healthy animal, and again, it is stunningly obvious when we do so when the subject is a human.
What you are describing when you assert a failure to demonstrate consciousness is an individual failure to grasp reality outside of one's own own perceptions, not any actual lack relating to the subject at hand. It is the source of the angsty childhood...teenage idea that the world actually revolves around them. But the inability to get out of your own head does not equate to the actuality of nothing being outside your head. And that goes just as well for the.. "philosophers" you quote. That kind of simplistic navel-gazing is strictly the domain of those very poorly grounded in reality. It isn't deep thinking. When a human does it, it's stupid thinking -- strictly low performance and pointless beyond a moment's consideration and subsequent discard.
I assure you that consciousness is no trick at all to recognize, and particularly so when it is similar to our own. The most obvious manifestation of consciousness such as ours is the ability to manipulate arbitrary new abstracts in the contexts of one's own future and past, and that of others. The only thing we know of that can demonstrate those abilities is consciousness. The day may come when that is not a unique characteristic of consciousness, but it surely isn't here today.
Ah. but I can. And I have.
Wait, what? Failing when confronted with a novel situation isn't very intelligent? Your experience must have been quite different from mine. My life is a story of one failure after another, with successes being the exception rather than the rule. Not so much because I am not intelligent, but because I am. It's true enough that in most cases, my successes outweigh my failures, primarily because I continued to put effort into them, but they certainly aren't as numerous.
So, no one is conscious but you?
To the extent that this is true (it isn't always), it is also true of solutions created by human means and intent -- products of our intelligence.
You're really not making a good case at all.
Well, let me put it to you this way: So far, the only examples of intelligence we have spring from conscious entities. If intelligence can be achieved without consciousness, that would be absolutely fascinating. But seeing as there isn't even a hint of such a thing anywhere, it is just an insupportable idea at the moment.
"soul" is just code-speak for superstition. Doesn't even belong in this conversation. Consciousness is demonstrable, even just within one's own head. Souls are presently hand-wavy speculation and have never been more than that, plus, scientifically speaking, our present physics solidly rule them out.
Nonsense. That is a classic baseless assertion. Most of what I hear -- which I'm not even prepared to say is "most people's outlook" -- is that consciousness is emergent. It doesn't get any other labels because it is a unique thing, not a member of a similar class of things.
Actually, I think we do. We at least have an actual model, free of woo-woo, for which no counter evidence has been brought forth as yet.
Even the low level stuff seems to finally be yielding some clarity.