Self-defense hasn't prevented a massacre because in all of the mass-shootings in the US save for one, they took place in "gun-free zones" where citizens were prevented from carrying their legally-owned firearms to use in self-defense. You can't use your gun to defend yourself if they tell you you're not allowed to carry it. Imagine that, all of these massacres happen where the perpetrator knows it's going to be fish in a barrel.
If you wanted to shoot up a place, which one would you choose: the one where people might be packing heat, or the one where your guaranteed that no one can shoot back at you?
Amazingly enough, as time moves on, technology progresses and more details emerge. Whodathunkit! Some of us find it entertaining. If you're not interested in reading about it.... don't?
If someone wants to fundamentally misunderstand Kurzweil's clearly spelled out arguments the first time, how likely is it they will gain sudden insight from random online comments? Obviously the original coward (I'm assuming you are not him/her) gave enough of a damn to not only click on this topic but to also type out an asinine comment, yet didn't care enough to actually read what the man has really said rather than what they want to think he did. Others may read that and think his (the coward's) argument has some merit. I only meant to point out that not only does it not, but it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument.
Thank you for challenging me to provide more detail as I should have done from the outset.
If you actually read what the man has written, you'd see that he's pretty explicit in that raw computing power is necessary for matching and exceeding the computational ability of the human brain for superhuman intelligence, but that it is not by itself sufficient. Raw computing power doesn't do anything without the proper algorithms running on it, which is the entire point of his latest book. I didn't think it needed spelling out when Kurzweil himself has already done so many, many times.
Maybe next time you ought to think about getting a cardiologist who doesn't believe in voodoo and superstition as a medical cause. Maybe then you might have gotten a more accurate diagnosis in the first place.
Following your first 3 points, I still don't see anyone lobbying for the banning of smoking which to my knowledge has no positive health benefits and is replete with health detriments. Nor to the implementation of mandatory exercise programs for those that wish to be covered under socialized healthcare. Either of these proposals would satisfy your points 2 and 3 at the top.
But of course anything "good" done by religious people doesn't count in favor of religion unless NO secular person would have done the same thing.
Christopher Hitchens put it most eloquently:
Name a moral action undertaken by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken by a non-believer, or name a moral statement made by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken or made by a non-believer.
I find it hard to believe that atheists were killing Jews "in the name of atheism" because they were "Christ-killers". It sounds more like that 200,000 Jews number was more an account of the "conflict between religious groups" that the State Atheism was supposed to stop. So even that 200,000 number doesn't even count towards the supposed millions.
When a religious person "strays from God", the are leaving behind and usually alienating their entire circle of personal relationships in the process, other people who still cling to the belief in God and can't fathom the idea of not believing. Even worse, they many times ridicule, insult, cut off contact with, and sometimes threaten the apostate. When you leave behind a majority group such as "believers" to become part of a much maligned, untrusted, and growing but still relatively tiny minority, it's no wonder that many notable times the results are catastrophe.
Why not? You obviously want it both ways: first you say it's impossible for something to come from absolutely nothing. Then you say "except God". How is that not having it both ways?
Bonus silliness: you were born an atheist, and only later were you introduced to the concept of a god and had to work backwards to try to justify it.
I don't think it's so much "casual handwaving" of the problems of "consciousness" as much as it is that you assume that consciousness = intelligence, or that consciousness is a necessary component of intelligence. With that, I don't agree.
Ray Kurzweil hasn't been involved with Kurzweil Music Systems for many, many years now, and even when he owned the company (he hasn't been an owner since 1990), most of the heavy algorithm/signal processing generation was done by really egghead guys like Hal Chamberlin. He founded the company and its general signal processing ideas (adapted from his earlier work on visual signal processing for reading machines), but to say that he "knows" the modern state of digital synthesis technology is a gross mischaracterization. Have you tried a lot of modern synths? Most of them sound pretty damn good to me, unless you can be more specific than "they suck!".
I don't think the fact that he's a billionaire is going to matter a whole lot to any women that are choosing to spend the rest of their lives on Mars...
Are they planning to do a lot of mall shopping while they're up there?
Actually, "normal" crop breeding is more akin to your analogy that you posted: blindly swinging a bat, hoping you hit the ball, and not even sure if the ball is even there. Genetic engineering is more like a trained sniper that has picked out his target, knows exactly where it is and where to hit it. It sounds like you don't really know what or how genetic engineering is done these days.
We call this genetic algorithms or more generally evolutionary computing, and it tends to produce very novel, working results used in wide-ranging applications and industries.
Slashdot Mirror
If you wanted to shoot up a place, which one would you choose: the one where people might be packing heat, or the one where your guaranteed that no one can shoot back at you?
Amazingly enough, as time moves on, technology progresses and more details emerge. Whodathunkit! Some of us find it entertaining. If you're not interested in reading about it.... don't?
Thank you for challenging me to provide more detail as I should have done from the outset.
If you actually read what the man has written, you'd see that he's pretty explicit in that raw computing power is necessary for matching and exceeding the computational ability of the human brain for superhuman intelligence, but that it is not by itself sufficient. Raw computing power doesn't do anything without the proper algorithms running on it, which is the entire point of his latest book. I didn't think it needed spelling out when Kurzweil himself has already done so many, many times.
Thank you for showing us just how little you understand about what the man has actually said.
Molesting alter boys.
Maybe next time you ought to think about getting a cardiologist who doesn't believe in voodoo and superstition as a medical cause. Maybe then you might have gotten a more accurate diagnosis in the first place.
Redstone ore, duh. It's the only one that provides energy.
Following your first 3 points, I still don't see anyone lobbying for the banning of smoking which to my knowledge has no positive health benefits and is replete with health detriments. Nor to the implementation of mandatory exercise programs for those that wish to be covered under socialized healthcare. Either of these proposals would satisfy your points 2 and 3 at the top.
Zomg, a company makes money off of sales of something that you don't need to play the game? Travesty! That has to be illegal!
In the butt!
Christopher Hitchens put it most eloquently:
Name a moral action undertaken by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken by a non-believer, or name a moral statement made by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken or made by a non-believer.
I miss that guy. :\
I find it hard to believe that atheists were killing Jews "in the name of atheism" because they were "Christ-killers". It sounds more like that 200,000 Jews number was more an account of the "conflict between religious groups" that the State Atheism was supposed to stop. So even that 200,000 number doesn't even count towards the supposed millions.
When a religious person "strays from God", the are leaving behind and usually alienating their entire circle of personal relationships in the process, other people who still cling to the belief in God and can't fathom the idea of not believing. Even worse, they many times ridicule, insult, cut off contact with, and sometimes threaten the apostate. When you leave behind a majority group such as "believers" to become part of a much maligned, untrusted, and growing but still relatively tiny minority, it's no wonder that many notable times the results are catastrophe.
Bonus silliness: you were born an atheist, and only later were you introduced to the concept of a god and had to work backwards to try to justify it.
I don't think it's so much "casual handwaving" of the problems of "consciousness" as much as it is that you assume that consciousness = intelligence, or that consciousness is a necessary component of intelligence. With that, I don't agree.
Ray Kurzweil hasn't been involved with Kurzweil Music Systems for many, many years now, and even when he owned the company (he hasn't been an owner since 1990), most of the heavy algorithm/signal processing generation was done by really egghead guys like Hal Chamberlin. He founded the company and its general signal processing ideas (adapted from his earlier work on visual signal processing for reading machines), but to say that he "knows" the modern state of digital synthesis technology is a gross mischaracterization. Have you tried a lot of modern synths? Most of them sound pretty damn good to me, unless you can be more specific than "they suck!".
Are they planning to do a lot of mall shopping while they're up there?
Soylent green eggs and ham!
Actually, "normal" crop breeding is more akin to your analogy that you posted: blindly swinging a bat, hoping you hit the ball, and not even sure if the ball is even there. Genetic engineering is more like a trained sniper that has picked out his target, knows exactly where it is and where to hit it. It sounds like you don't really know what or how genetic engineering is done these days.
Unlike the needlessly-contentious Mr Dawkins, I see no issue with religion co-existing with science.
When Muslim fundamentalists get ahold of and detonate a nuclear bomb, you may find you have a funny definition of "co-existing".
We call this genetic algorithms or more generally evolutionary computing, and it tends to produce very novel, working results used in wide-ranging applications and industries.
And that's why it's useless to cite.
They're totally forgetting about apocalyptic virus-zombies though! What bullshit!
Remember, they're still a virgin if they take it in the butt! Right? Right?!