I know this is a little late, but I thought I should thank you for responding to that point. I guess another way of putting it this:
Assuming there is no higher intelligence giving Humans intelligence, then there is no distinction between natural and artificial intelligence. Ergo, Artificial Intelligence is possible.
Assuming there is a higher intelligence who has given Humans the capability for thought, then it must be possible to create intelligence, therefore Artificial Intelligence is possible.
Why should AI be impossible? Surely it must be possible, with the human brain as evidence? One might argue that the brain is merely a biological computer not fully understood. Unless there is a "higher intelligence" giving humans beings thoughts, then AI must be possible. I suppose this is analogous to a Human "telling" a machine what to think, though, and gives rise to the "who created the creator" argument, but that's getting a little offtopic...
This comment is somewhat similar to one below for which I apologise, but I wanted to expand on the point slightly:)
Heh, I did almost the exact same thing; I had a work placement at ARM back when I was in high school, and my boss was showing me something in the console. I said how impressed I was with his typing speed... I never forgot about tab completion after that:D
According to the Wiki page, Fermat left a note in the margin of his Arithmetica which read:
I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I would presume this to be the reason for it to be known as a theory, even if the comment was intended as tongue-in-cheek (which I certainly took it as, but I could be wrong:))
I would advise reading the content at the GP's link. I believe he was satirising the technical community rather than actually taking that stance. Regardless, your argument is true; I would wager than many people simply don't need these features enough to learn to use them.
I wouldn't say that it was the core of biology at all. I simply meant to point out that you were misrepresenting the amount of information generally given on the subject (at least from my own experience).
there is no reason to believe in the validity of the statement either.
There is reason to believe, and that reason is that there exists a large body of evidence suggesting that this is the case. In other terms, the theory that there was an extremely long mutation chain eventually leading to a sparrow is the current theory best supported by the evidence, and is therefore viewed as "correct". If new, contradicting evidence emerges, the theory will be revised.
Many people have personal experiences that they would consider reason to believe such. Such reasons may not be applicable to others [...]
Therein lies the problem. If reasons are not applicable to others, these reasons are not scientifically valid. Evidence and experiments must be reproducible and observable.
I apologise for not responding to your third question, I'm afraid I didn't quite understand what you were getting at.
Even chemistry does this, presenting the indivisible, plum-pudding, Rutherford, and Bohr models of the atom before the modern quantum model.
Yes, but the plum-pudding, Rutherford, and all the other models had some evidence. There was a reason to believe these models; They made (or tried to make) accurate predictions about the natural world. Creationism doesn't, and it's as scientifically valid as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science did NOT come from religion, and it cannot make any claims about it; Religion is untestable.
I'm not sure what biology books you've seen, but since you didn't provide a citation, i've had a look in my A-Level textbook. (A-Levels are the british equivalent of a high school diploma - almost)
Chapter 20 (Pages 436-463) of "Advanced Biology" by Michael Kent are all on evolution. The first four subsections therein are as follows:
Theories of Evolution Evidence for Evolution(1)
Evidence for Evolution(2)
Natural Selection
-- snip --
Not quite the "few sentences" you mention. I would wager that either the state of textbooks in the US is worse than I'd imagined, or that you're talking out of your arse.
Sure, I believe that there exist beneficial traits that can be derived by mutation chain from other traits, but it would be a logical fallacy to then assume that every trait in existence can be so derived from an original set.
While technically this is a fallacy, there's no reason to believe otherwise, and certainly no reason to believe there's an omnipotent being controlling things.
Well when they/do/ paint it black, and it's still detectable, I imagine their train of thought will go something like this:
It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black.
Why must I? Do you find it impossible to admit that you might not know the answers to some of those questions? In any case, why is it more rational to believe that an omnipotent being outside the universe controls everything? Surely it's just as valid an argument to say that the universe is a simulation inside some alien computer, after all, both theories are entirely untestable.
Regarding point f: > Living is irrelevant. Why is continuing to keep the configuration of molecules in your body important?
The answer is simple: These molecules are arranged in such a way that they will attempt to preserve their order. In other terms, Humans are genetically predisposed towards self-preservation.
As for "Living is irrelevant", It's my personal belief that that's correct: Fear of death is not evidence of an afterlife. Even if I were certain that life was irrelevant I wouldn't kill myself. One only has a single chance at life (from this point of view, anyway) so why waste it?
I, too, tried to run a kettle off all my powerstrips at Uni. Little did I know, they'd limited the sockets to about 5 amps. I could turn on my kettle and the whole corridor would go black for about five minutes:D
A lot of websites also seem to only check region once, then 'remember' it in a cookie. It's certainly the case that with youtube you can clear your cookies, set up a proxy in the U.S., load youtube, and then kill the proxy and you'll still have access to all the U.S. only content. It might not work for NBC/BBC but it'll speed things up if your proxy is slow.
Now I know that was a joke, but i'm going to respond anyway:
I _like_ Rothko (I can't really explain why, it just happens to please my eye). I wouldn't look at his paintings for an extended period of time, but that said, I wouldn't listen to the same piece of music over and over again. A lot of modern artists _do_ come up with some real shite, but I think it's unfair to generalise.
I guess I just don't see why there has to be 'meaning' in art nowadays.
the GP still has a valid point; after all one doesn't have to understand the inner workings of the brain, merely how to 'interface' with them. For example, an electronic eye would only have to know what impulses to send to the brain along the optic nerve. Then again, I may have misinterpreted the GP's post:)
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is a little late, but I thought I should thank you for responding to that point. I guess another way of putting it this:
Assuming there is no higher intelligence giving Humans intelligence, then there is no distinction between natural and artificial intelligence. Ergo, Artificial Intelligence is possible.
Assuming there is a higher intelligence who has given Humans the capability for thought, then it must be possible to create intelligence, therefore Artificial Intelligence is possible.
Why should AI be impossible? Surely it must be possible, with the human brain as evidence? One might argue that the brain is merely a biological computer not fully understood. Unless there is a "higher intelligence" giving humans beings thoughts, then AI must be possible. I suppose this is analogous to a Human "telling" a machine what to think, though, and gives rise to the "who created the creator" argument, but that's getting a little offtopic... :)
This comment is somewhat similar to one below for which I apologise, but I wanted to expand on the point slightly
Heh, I did almost the exact same thing; I had a work placement at ARM back when I was in high school, and my boss was showing me something in the console. I said how impressed I was with his typing speed... I never forgot about tab completion after that :D
According to the Wiki page, Fermat left a note in the margin of his Arithmetica which read:
I would presume this to be the reason for it to be known as a theory, even if the comment was intended as tongue-in-cheek (which I certainly took it as, but I could be wrong :))
I would advise reading the content at the GP's link. I believe he was satirising the technical community rather than actually taking that stance. Regardless, your argument is true; I would wager than many people simply don't need these features enough to learn to use them.
I wouldn't say that it was the core of biology at all. I simply meant to point out that you were misrepresenting the amount of information generally given on the subject (at least from my own experience).
There is reason to believe, and that reason is that there exists a large body of evidence suggesting that this is the case. In other terms, the theory that there was an extremely long mutation chain eventually leading to a sparrow is the current theory best supported by the evidence, and is therefore viewed as "correct". If new, contradicting evidence emerges, the theory will be revised.
Therein lies the problem. If reasons are not applicable to others, these reasons are not scientifically valid. Evidence and experiments must be reproducible and observable.
I apologise for not responding to your third question, I'm afraid I didn't quite understand what you were getting at.
Yes, but the plum-pudding, Rutherford, and all the other models had some evidence. There was a reason to believe these models; They made (or tried to make) accurate predictions about the natural world. Creationism doesn't, and it's as scientifically valid as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science did NOT come from religion, and it cannot make any claims about it; Religion is untestable.
Chapter 20 (Pages 436-463) of "Advanced Biology" by Michael Kent are all on evolution. The first four subsections therein are as follows:
Theories of Evolution
Evidence for Evolution(1)
Evidence for Evolution(2)
Natural Selection
-- snip --
Not quite the "few sentences" you mention. I would wager that either the state of textbooks in the US is worse than I'd imagined, or that you're talking out of your arse.
While technically this is a fallacy, there's no reason to believe otherwise, and certainly no reason to believe there's an omnipotent being controlling things.
You had a valid point until you put "fail" at the end... lol!
Well when they /do/ paint it black, and it's still detectable, I imagine their train of thought will go something like this:
It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black.
Fixed that for you.
You must be new here.
> ... you must accept the following:
Why must I? Do you find it impossible to admit that you might not know the answers to some of those questions? In any case, why is it more rational to believe that an omnipotent being outside the universe controls everything? Surely it's just as valid an argument to say that the universe is a simulation inside some alien computer, after all, both theories are entirely untestable.
Regarding point f:
> Living is irrelevant. Why is continuing to keep the configuration of molecules in your body important?
The answer is simple: These molecules are arranged in such a way that they will attempt to preserve their order. In other terms, Humans are genetically predisposed towards self-preservation.
As for "Living is irrelevant", It's my personal belief that that's correct: Fear of death is not evidence of an afterlife. Even if I were certain that life was irrelevant I wouldn't kill myself. One only has a single chance at life (from this point of view, anyway) so why waste it?
I, too, tried to run a kettle off all my powerstrips at Uni. Little did I know, they'd limited the sockets to about 5 amps. I could turn on my kettle and the whole corridor would go black for about five minutes :D
And with that, I give you "Approaching Perimelasma" by Geoffrey A. Landis: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/perimelasma.htm
A lot of websites also seem to only check region once, then 'remember' it in a cookie. It's certainly the case that with youtube you can clear your cookies, set up a proxy in the U.S., load youtube, and then kill the proxy and you'll still have access to all the U.S. only content. It might not work for NBC/BBC but it'll speed things up if your proxy is slow.
It's probably in root's path; I'm running vanilla slack current, and it runs after su'ing.
Your signature is particularly fitting for that comment :D
On the contrary, I'd say having customers paying to *not play the game* is a fantastic result
Now I know that was a joke, but i'm going to respond anyway: I _like_ Rothko (I can't really explain why, it just happens to please my eye). I wouldn't look at his paintings for an extended period of time, but that said, I wouldn't listen to the same piece of music over and over again. A lot of modern artists _do_ come up with some real shite, but I think it's unfair to generalise. I guess I just don't see why there has to be 'meaning' in art nowadays.
He's probably a greengrocer
I must respectfully disagree, religion is merely a tool with which to facilitate laziness in thinking
PDF: the file format that can make a grown man scream.
the GP still has a valid point; after all one doesn't have to understand the inner workings of the brain, merely how to 'interface' with them. For example, an electronic eye would only have to know what impulses to send to the brain along the optic nerve. Then again, I may have misinterpreted the GP's post :)