Well, that's a nice thought of course but often is little more than fuzzy, wishful thinking: someone who believes in Biblical (or some other brand of) literalism is not an idiot to recognize a conflict with science. Science really does disprove his concept of God.
Of course, you could say that this is a straw-man, and you'd be right, except about half of the US believes precisely this. For at least half of the US population then, science disproves God. That it may have nothing to say one way or the other about more sophisticated conceptions of divinity is correct, but doesn't matter much if you're a creationist.
Actually, the overwhelming consensus of a wide cross-section of scientists is that the US is becoming anti-science. Scientists disagree on the mechanism by which this happens and whether factors like geographic separation are implicated, but there is no doubt that this theory is more than just a theory
I really wonder why people even believe in astrology. How could the light of a star, light that was emitted thousands or even milions of year ago, have anything to say about a persons life?
remember that the system arose well before anyone knew just how big the cosmos truly is, something that is rather hard to appreciate even when someone thros numbers at you.
Remember also that the idea that light travels at a finite speed is fairly recent, the idea that nothing travels faster than it newer still and that people who tend to get these things tend, on the whole, not to be the sorts of people who take astrology seriously anyway
I think it is important to look at this alleged erosion beyond "fundie rightwing nuts hate science." I mean, lets face it that's always been true. When it wasn't ID it was creationism proper.
One thing that may be happening here is just that Asian countries like China, Korea and India have started engaging in more science and technology (all those graduates aren't just answering Dell's phone calls you know), and in so doing have joined the US, Europe and Japan. The "comparative advantage" or "privileged position" of the US can then erode even with no actual decline in the absolute quality or quantity of work. This can only be a good thing - why should anyone worry that more countries are now doing research?
1. So, applying your standard, since CERN invented the web, some combination of Switzerland and France should take over the www thing. Or since someone at Duke came up with usenet they should "take it over"
2. This is ignorance talking, but do you think someone at the EU or in China or something is worried about security? Think hypothetical act-of-war situation where you might disable someone's networks. Or maybe big evil US spy agency can in principle monitor information that others cannot...easy to see why military types might care
3. the current system is not exactly fair: only US sites get to use.gov,.com is typically just a synonym for.US and so on
1. How does the complex algorithmic machine become conscious (therefore more than "just" algorithmic) simply by "interacting with the environment", and in what *non-algorithmic* terms can you characterize this interaction? Do you believe that we'll have to find new, non-algorithmic laws of nature simply to resolve the problem of consciousness?
2. About the engineers being the victors because they alone possess consciousness - what if the designers simply designed some sort of genetic algorithm where the computer in fact figured out a near optimal algorithm on its own? What if they had just set up a net of some sort and trained it? Does 'who won' in this instance depend upon what precise method the programmers used?
On the other hand, consider something even more extreme - walking around knowing you had no brain. And remember that Aristotle thought that the damn thing was used to cool the blood
And what of the grandmaster's multiple trainers, coaching from youth, expensive schooling and healthcare, hours and hours of careful analysis and carefully researched traps sprung on unsuspecting opponents?
This machine is better at chess than Adams is. Period. Unless you want to start claiming that the best chessplayers / sprinters / stockbrokers / physicists are no better at what they do than anyone else because it cost "many millions"
Neither here nor there. Unless it is your claim that DNA machines which ingest oreos and reproduce can be conscious but silicon chips encased in a cuboidal box cannot.
In any case, it is far from clear that the phenomenon of consciousness that allows a Kasparov to do the cogito ergo sum thing is what makes him a superb chessplayer.
It's more like five people controlling 35% of the global economy competing against twenty people who used to control 3% of the global economy, who can now see their share rise, say to 6%. In the process, very possibly the share of the rich five people goes down, maybe even proportionately, though trade is hardly a zero sum game.
No-one's saying the global economy is going to shrink. No-one's saying global income inequality is on the rise. There really isn't a moral argument here, except perhaps the patriotic one, though I fail to see how the American can value the European more than the Indian even on those terms.
The (evil? marauding?) multinationals go from poor country to poor country, raising living standards everywhere, relentlessly making people better educated and richer, till one day - oh the horrible day! - "there are no underdeveloped countries left, just bloated overdeveloped cesspools full of unemployed engineers"
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's a nice thought of course but often is little more than fuzzy, wishful thinking: someone who believes in Biblical (or some other brand of) literalism is not an idiot to recognize a conflict with science. Science really does disprove his concept of God.
Of course, you could say that this is a straw-man, and you'd be right, except about half of the US believes precisely this. For at least half of the US population then, science disproves God. That it may have nothing to say one way or the other about more sophisticated conceptions of divinity is correct, but doesn't matter much if you're a creationist.
Actually, the overwhelming consensus of a wide cross-section of scientists is that the US is becoming anti-science. Scientists disagree on the mechanism by which this happens and whether factors like geographic separation are implicated, but there is no doubt that this theory is more than just a theory
I really wonder why people even believe in astrology. How could the light of a star, light that was emitted thousands or even milions of year ago, have anything to say about a persons life?
remember that the system arose well before anyone knew just how big the cosmos truly is, something that is rather hard to appreciate even when someone thros numbers at you.
Remember also that the idea that light travels at a finite speed is fairly recent, the idea that nothing travels faster than it newer still and that people who tend to get these things tend, on the whole, not to be the sorts of people who take astrology seriously anyway
when did a rant become news? Stuff that matters?
A year is NOT 0.7 days!
a slashdot story about blue balls we're very attached to
I think it is important to look at this alleged erosion beyond "fundie rightwing nuts hate science." I mean, lets face it that's always been true. When it wasn't ID it was creationism proper. One thing that may be happening here is just that Asian countries like China, Korea and India have started engaging in more science and technology (all those graduates aren't just answering Dell's phone calls you know), and in so doing have joined the US, Europe and Japan. The "comparative advantage" or "privileged position" of the US can then erode even with no actual decline in the absolute quality or quantity of work. This can only be a good thing - why should anyone worry that more countries are now doing research?
It's like none of us are gaimfully employed. I mean, look at us making the same jokes over and over agaim.
When are they going to declare pirates an endangered species? His Noodly Holiness is most peeved...
a wise wit once said "if you're not with us, you're against us"
yes, but it is anarcho-syndicalist?
can I be a soup Nazi?
isn't irregular mining banned anyway?
damnation! Again my insidious plan to make everyone speak for their parents comes to naught!
Won't you at least think of the children?
no no no! You're missing the point! The principle is "largest democracy." However:
* India is too big and has too people.
* largest really means area. Again, Russia is too big so it doesn't count.
* Canada...well Canada just sucks.
So basically it's like Goldilocks. With the US both area and population are just right.
It's quite simple really...I can't begin to understand why you have so much trouble with it.
1. So, applying your standard, since CERN invented the web, some combination of Switzerland and France should take over the www thing. Or since someone at Duke came up with usenet they should "take it over"
2. This is ignorance talking, but do you think someone at the EU or in China or something is worried about security? Think hypothetical act-of-war situation where you might disable someone's networks. Or maybe big evil US spy agency can in principle monitor information that others cannot...easy to see why military types might care
3. the current system is not exactly fair: only US sites get to use .gov, .com is typically just a synonym for .US and so on
1. How does the complex algorithmic machine become conscious (therefore more than "just" algorithmic) simply by "interacting with the environment", and in what *non-algorithmic* terms can you characterize this interaction? Do you believe that we'll have to find new, non-algorithmic laws of nature simply to resolve the problem of consciousness?
2. About the engineers being the victors because they alone possess consciousness - what if the designers simply designed some sort of genetic algorithm where the computer in fact figured out a near optimal algorithm on its own? What if they had just set up a net of some sort and trained it? Does 'who won' in this instance depend upon what precise method the programmers used?
On the other hand, consider something even more extreme - walking around knowing you had no brain. And remember that Aristotle thought that the damn thing was used to cool the blood
And what of the grandmaster's multiple trainers, coaching from youth, expensive schooling and healthcare, hours and hours of careful analysis and carefully researched traps sprung on unsuspecting opponents? This machine is better at chess than Adams is. Period. Unless you want to start claiming that the best chessplayers / sprinters / stockbrokers / physicists are no better at what they do than anyone else because it cost "many millions"
Neither here nor there. Unless it is your claim that DNA machines which ingest oreos and reproduce can be conscious but silicon chips encased in a cuboidal box cannot.
In any case, it is far from clear that the phenomenon of consciousness that allows a Kasparov to do the cogito ergo sum thing is what makes him a superb chessplayer.
I can mentally picture Jack Valenti reading this and getting apoplectic. joy!!
It's more like five people controlling 35% of the global economy competing against twenty people who used to control 3% of the global economy, who can now see their share rise, say to 6%. In the process, very possibly the share of the rich five people goes down, maybe even proportionately, though trade is hardly a zero sum game.
No-one's saying the global economy is going to shrink. No-one's saying global income inequality is on the rise. There really isn't a moral argument here, except perhaps the patriotic one, though I fail to see how the American can value the European more than the Indian even on those terms.
On your account then, we have the following:
The (evil? marauding?) multinationals go from poor country to poor country, raising living standards everywhere, relentlessly making people better educated and richer, till one day - oh the horrible day! - "there are no underdeveloped countries left, just bloated overdeveloped cesspools full of unemployed engineers"
A novel argument, at any rate.