Firstly, take the word "phone" and replace it with computer. They are one and the same.
I'll use Neonode alone in my examples - it's all that's needed.
"Neonode's: draw a geometric shape on a screen with no indication of success or failure or other response until the figure is complete"
Neodnode's action was very specifically left to right at the bottom of the screen (i.e. not a user specified pattern). Apple copied this exact same action. The action is arbitrary if it is not used as a coded input. Both Apple and Neonode's are not a coded input, they are a pre-specified action that tells the OS that someone wants the OS's state set to unlocked.
Neonode's success indication was that the screen unlocked. Apple copied this same indication of unlock success (the same as all computers).
Apple's "innovation" was that during the unlock procedure they animated the icon to follow the invisible cursor (which happens to correspond with your finger because it is a touch screen). The animation does not add to the success or failure of the action - since user feedback by animation is not necessary for a human to swipe a finger across a screen from left to right. It does not increase the security of the system over Neonode's - i.e. it does not prevent an unauthorised access of the system. Apple's animation is arbitrary eye candy.
"the function of changing the image is covered under utility patents."
Which in my opinion, and that of a lot of others, deserves no protection. Just like software patents.
"Allow me to help, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about."
No idea you say. Then why are you even bothering with a reply? I love how people like you (yes, like you) love to dismiss others as having no knowledge of a topic at all. The hubris is amazing. I'm pretty sure I covered this arrogance in my premade reply.
"By saying you've shown "clear prior art", you've said nothing."
Really, I'm pretty sure I'm saying there is clearly prior art to this patent.
"What you intended to say is that you've shown "anticipatory prior art"."
No, I intended to write "prior art". Because that is what it is (as you admit). I'm not addressing the animation - I already wrote that. The animation of an icon does not deserve protection. The animation of an icon really is obvious (it has always been the natural progression of icons over time when enough computing power becomes available). Breaking it down to saying "anticipatory prior art" is covered below.
"the legal standard is everything." So when 99 out of 100 claims are struck out you have what left? Certainly not a patent that will be approved. Or at best, 1% of the original patent.
"Hey, look, you can use hindsight and claim it's obvious and not novel all you want, but until you show some evidence that pre-dates the application, and not just your repeated unsupported assertion, you've proven nothing. It's like you're calling someone guilty without requiring any evidence. If you find due process to be so boring, then maybe this isn't a debate you should be having."
Yawn. It's not hindsight to claim that animation of an icon is obvious. Adding a touch screen (which from a technical perspective is no different than any other screen and input device) to the equation is not patent worthy. I'm actually disturbed you think it deserves protection. Animated icons (which is what the unlock image is) have been around since the early 90s. Linking animation on screen to user input has been around since at least the early 90s as well.
You seem to lack insight into the technical aspects of implementing these functions and whether they are technically obvious or not. That is always a problem with the lay-person addressing programming and computing devices.
I ask you. Is Apple's implementation of slide to unlock achievable under Micron's patent? Yes of course it is. Under Mircron's patent you could do it with or without an image. You could animate the image if you so chose. You could require any sort of pattern. That fact they didn't specify animated icons is because it's like specifying in a patent application for a new car chassis that it could be painted red (or any other colour). It's obvious. Since I believe that the animated icon is an obvious implementation, I believe that the Neonode video shows the invention in it's totality (and is therefore not anticipatory). Adding animation is arbitrary and obvious (as per my colour example). Changing the icon from a lock to an unlock image is arbitrary and obvious. You could use images of Nyan cat or puppies. It's just arbitrary colours to represent the function of unlocking a computing device.
I point you to Germany's ruling on this non-patent.
"If you can't support a conclusion with evidence, then legally, you have nothing."
Mate, this is Slashdot. There is a standard of evidence under the current US rules that my argument may not be sufficient for. This is not a US court of law of course (i.e. I'm not challenging it in court, I'm challenging it publicly on the grounds of having technical expertise that makes this obvious to me and millions of others like me). In short, I'm arguing that it is clear to a technically minded person (this happens to be my field - it doesn't make me an authority because of that of course) and that the prior art shows the "invention" - not anticipat
It's such a shame you're locked into your own reference frame without being able to see out of it. It may come with time.
I readily already admit there is no unlock image. As I clearly wrote, changing a graphic from a lock to a graphic representing unlock is not novel. It's two sides of the same coin. "Oh ours is unique, it says 'unlock', not 'locked'' doesn't fly. Images themselves are covered under copyright.
"Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim."
It's pretty clear that I did address it when I pointed out that if that is the only claim to novelty then they are clutching at straws.
You can clearly see that the actions of the Apple patent are described under the Micron patent, sans the changed animated graphic. I'll repeat that changing the graphic and making it animated are not novel. Additionally they are completely obvious (and not just because they'd been previously implemented in various forms on other computing devices).
Prior art is just that, prior art. Having shown clear prior art you deny that it is for some unknown reason. You can deny it until the cows come home, but there are a whole lot of people (as in almost everyone else who sees it) who agree that it is prior art.
"Micron describes everything in the patent!... oh, wait, no it doesn't... "
Oh wait, no I didn't write that. I wrote Apple's first claim is "encompassed in Micron's first claim". Learn to copy and paste. When enough of the claims are covered by proven claims in other patents there is no claim to be had.
Bored meaning "bored". Don't push your parapraxis of "frustrated and ashamed" out onto others, deal with it yourself. Perhaps take a remedial course in English while you're at it.
Hey look, you can believe it's novel and non-obvious if you like and I'm pretty sure nobody is going to convince you otherwise. You stick to it. Keep believing.
I'm still bored by you. Bored that I've come across the umpteenth person that even with clear evidence of something denies it - or even the clear possibility of it.
In conclusion I'll take it a step further. All software patents are complete crap and deserve zero protection at all. Zero.
Hey look, I'll formulate your reply to save you the trouble (and it will save me the trouble of reading your reply).
"You still haven't shown me anything at all. The Micron patent doesn't cover any of the Apple patent at all. The Neonode doesn't show someone using a 99% similar version of sliding to unlock. Nobody understands this patent like me!!!".
From Micron's patent's first claim "a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory."
Apple's first claim is clearly encompassed in Micron's first claim.
In the Neonode video at 4:13 their is an image of a lock icon. The presenter performs an action synonymous with the claims in Apple's (and Micron's) patent which unlocks the phone. The only difference is the background icon is not animated and is a lock versus an unlock icon. Changing icons is not novel (clearly). So does changing the icon and making it animated make for a novel invention? I say no.
"The patent is about automatically detecting useful data in arbitrary plaintext (say dates or phone numbers in an email)"
Data mining plaintext for useful information, indicating it in a UI, and being able to manipulate or perform an action from that data predates the existence of Apple as a company. It's one of the primary functions of computers that was figured out very early on. I'd call that about as obvious as it gets.
"Micron's patent covering a "system and method for controlling user access to an electronic device" was given a US Patent 8,352,745 in January 2013 but it claims priority to an original application filed in February 2000 and lists Jim McKeeth as inventor."
Apple's slide to unlock was non-novel (already done) and could probably be considered obvious (if multiple groups independently came up with the same solution then it is likely an obvious solution - assuming they were totally independent).
Treating a phone number like a hyperlink is very obvious. Of course the vast, vast majority of older devices, like "those...before 2000" didn't have touch screens to be able to easily implement it.
Reported mtbf for SSDs is higher than regular HDDs.
I can't remember where but there was a recent release of stats from a data center (similar to the stats in question) that had SSDs vs HDDs and the SSDs came out on top for reliability.
I think a major factor that makes SSDs more reliable is that they are not sensitive to shock or vibration - so in a laptop/tablet/phone dominated world, you will have much higher reliability with SSDs than traditional HDDs.
Yes. They are getting cheaper and faster. They are already much faster than magnetic rotating discs in read/write/iops.
Don't be facetious, you can't get a 1TB SSD for 100$ yet and you know this. The OP clearly wrote "getting cheaper", he didn't say they have parity on price.
The reliability rate for current generation SSDs is now higher than traditional HDDs. So in regards to " run 24hours/24hours for 5 years without any problems ?", take your pick, they can all do it better than a traditional HDD.
I think traditional HDDs have precious few years left.
Has it been entered into the criminal code at a federal level?
This should definitely be a civil matter and the FBI should have no involvement in small time cases like this (what a waste of money, up next the FBI giving parking tickets).
What "said papers"? I'll look up "TheTurtlesMoves" and see how many hits it comes up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method - I've been familiar with it since high school. I'm also familiar with it's limits. These limits are not a problem if one admits that they exist.
I'm happy for you to provide some evidence that I'm wrong. If you do I'll happily take in that new information. One of the key tenets of science is to pass on understanding of one's results - it's a shared discipline. I'd love to read your papers. Please provide some links.
You calling me (or anyone) an idiot because you disagree with me paints you in a terribly arrogant light. You should be ashamed of yourself. It borders on bigotry.
I have read " a bit of philosophy in science". It doesn't change what we can and can't test. It doesn't take away the technological limits of what we are able to currently achieve.
"And you don't do that for evolution, which is also an ongoing process plus fossil record, cuz why?"
We don't because we can't (we don't have the technology - yet). I.e. we can't yet observe it happening. We have observed that it has happened. Please note how that is worded - you keep missing subtleties like this.
"Just because we're pointing out your concern trolling for what is is, doesn't mean we haven't read the thread."
"We're" not pointing anything out. I'm pointing out that if you read the whole thread you'd see what the argument is about - which you have missed.
"Argument by selectively quoting authority." A call to authority does have its limits - in this case I'm not saying it's true because of who said it. In this case it's a verifiable statement and I quoted the authority that stated it - one can't argue that it's a call to authority simply because another is quoting an authority - what would be the point in having experts (authorities) in a topic otherwise?
"Which we have, again," No - we - haven't. I set the topic - you're actually talking about something else (very related though), sadly, without realising it.
"Arguing that we haven't seen DNA changes in organisms is like arguing that there's no evidence that we live in a heliocentric solar system." No - I - didn't. I never argued that we haven't seen "DNA changes in organisms". Of course we have. Can you see my talking about the long term evolution experiment with escherichia coli? A perfect example of us detecting changes in DNA. The argument isn't about that. The argument is about how we detect it. We detect it by comparing cells and looking to see if it has changed. If it has changed then it has mutated - but we did not observe the mutation happening - we detected it post mutation. Is this clear yet? Here is an earlier quote from me:
"we currently deduce it has occurred through comparison of genomic data. I.e. we compare an antecedent and descendant cell, if there are novel changes then it has mutated. But we don't and haven't observed it occurring at this level. As in watch it happen real-time (which is what I meant in case there is confusion)."
Are you with it yet? I'm pretty sure you didn't read the whole thread - I had to make myself clear to another person too so the argument was clarified for anyone to see (in this small portion of the thread). Catch up mate, you're boring me.
At this point you can either admit that you missed the subtleties of the argument and that you were arguing something that wasn't ever in question, or you can delude yourself in the face of clear evidence (i.e. the thread) otherwise.
"You can't test that the Grand Canyon was formed via erosion."
Since it is still being formed we can test that it is being made by erosion and then extrapolate back in time. Either way red herrings are just that (red herrings).
"Laughably false."
It's probably better if you read the whole thread and then show some evidence that we have observed it happening (not post occurrence, but during the event). That's what this is about. I hate it when people can't keep up. Remember to email Sir Richard Dawkins and tell him he's wrong as he readily admits what I asserted - in fact I initially learned it from his talk.
" Fruit flies. Bacteria. This is elementary-school level biology, here."
Fruit flies what? I assume you mean drosophila. Bacteria? What about it? Do you have something to say about the several million varieties of bacteria? Random nouns don't mean much in an argument.
It's not ridiculous or stupid. It's an incredibly important appreciation of the limitations of our abilities in science. (btw, we haven't imaged an electron afaik).
You're anecdotal assertion that "about 98% of current "science" that hasn't even been observed and never ever will be" is unsupported. I recognise the sentiment you are trying to express though, and yes, a significant amount of science has never been observed. As above, this is super important as a recognition of where we have good experimental knowledge and where we have intelligently made hypotheses to fill in our observational gaps. I'm fine with this as the state of our science - humans are really good at filling in the gaps by using our brains. But I don't subscribe to pretending that we've seen or know something that we don't.
The discussion started with assertions about what could be tested (using the scientific method). I've rightly pointed out there are parts of science that are assumed by your average Joe to have been thoroughly tested but are not.
I politely asked for some papers to support your claims. Do you have them? This is a related field of study for me so I'm genuinely interested. There is no shame in saying that you've read this at some time but don't remember where or when (it happens to me all the time).
Well that would be cool, but I'm not sure you're correct. Afaik we don't have the technology to simultaneously observe and decode genomic data during cell replication phases.
I believe we currently deduce it has occurred through comparison of genomic data. I.e. we compare an antecedent and descendant cell, if there are novel changes then it has mutated. But we don't and haven't observed it occurring at this level. As in watch it happen real-time (which is what I meant in case there is confusion).
An axiom is also a starting point for reasoning (according to my sometimes always almost never correct friend wikipedia... )
So maybe he is arguing this point as his starting point, as per "One fundamental issue is whether or not conscious awareness is simply a by-product of complex intelligent systems."?
For the record I wrote "largely untestable" and by this I did not mean entirely untestable. Maybe it wasn't worded the best.
You answered it for me "It may be currently difficult/impossible to perform molecular level tests of evolution" - which is close enough to the sentiment I was trying to convey. It's just a reflection on the state of the art. It's my sentence with the "yet!!!" in it. The "yet!!!" was meant to mean that I think it will happen one day.
Perhaps, considering I already put some thought into questions like yours (as you can see from the comment history), you should go back and reread my original statement and you'll see the answer to your question (the same could be said for your first post - I was polite enough to point out you missed the answer to your posit written in my first post).
That is very much a tip of the iceberg experiment proving that it occurs (useful really). It doesn't test for or show the intracellular mutation that is going on (that constitutes evolution). Nor does it test for multi-cell organism evolution (which is where the money is).
I'd add that a gradient between species does exist - just not *across species* as he expects. Instead the gradient exist backwards in time. Perhaps this would help him:
Oh to share your certainty of what definitely is or isn't. I'm afraid I'm trapped in a standard human body, with limited perception of the universe, and limited intelligence.
"I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist." Is that a call to authority?
"I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist." An alien civilisation could have evolved to the point where they can control time and space with a thought. This fits the definition of a god. I know I don't know whether they exist or not.
"The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god"." And same said civilisation could be as dumb as poles (just so you know I'm not conflating terms).
"They are tyrants otherwise, and if not, surely not deserving of the title "god"." Hubris. Don't think human intelligence is automatically able to perceive all of the tyrants intelligence (and therefore purpose to which you were created in said hypothesis). By your definition, if they are in full control of your reality, you may not be as free as you perceive yourself to be - and thus your choice of not to worship comes into question (did you choose? how would you know you chose?).
"What if the Christians are right, and I am wrong?" Why single this one religion out? You forgot about a dozen others. Good on you that you are advancing the sciences. Keep in mind millions upon millions of religious and non-religious people alike the world over are advancing the sciences as well. How about you give them a shout out too?
Slashdot Mirror
Good attempt (and thank you for doing it).
I disagree though.
Firstly, take the word "phone" and replace it with computer. They are one and the same.
I'll use Neonode alone in my examples - it's all that's needed.
"Neonode's: draw a geometric shape on a screen with no indication of success or failure or other response until the figure is complete"
Neodnode's action was very specifically left to right at the bottom of the screen (i.e. not a user specified pattern). Apple copied this exact same action. The action is arbitrary if it is not used as a coded input. Both Apple and Neonode's are not a coded input, they are a pre-specified action that tells the OS that someone wants the OS's state set to unlocked.
Neonode's success indication was that the screen unlocked. Apple copied this same indication of unlock success (the same as all computers).
Apple's "innovation" was that during the unlock procedure they animated the icon to follow the invisible cursor (which happens to correspond with your finger because it is a touch screen). The animation does not add to the success or failure of the action - since user feedback by animation is not necessary for a human to swipe a finger across a screen from left to right. It does not increase the security of the system over Neonode's - i.e. it does not prevent an unauthorised access of the system. Apple's animation is arbitrary eye candy.
I stand by my previous assertions.
"the function of changing the image is covered under utility patents."
Which in my opinion, and that of a lot of others, deserves no protection. Just like software patents.
"Allow me to help, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about."
No idea you say. Then why are you even bothering with a reply? I love how people like you (yes, like you) love to dismiss others as having no knowledge of a topic at all. The hubris is amazing. I'm pretty sure I covered this arrogance in my premade reply.
"By saying you've shown "clear prior art", you've said nothing."
Really, I'm pretty sure I'm saying there is clearly prior art to this patent.
"What you intended to say is that you've shown "anticipatory prior art"."
No, I intended to write "prior art". Because that is what it is (as you admit). I'm not addressing the animation - I already wrote that. The animation of an icon does not deserve protection. The animation of an icon really is obvious (it has always been the natural progression of icons over time when enough computing power becomes available). Breaking it down to saying "anticipatory prior art" is covered below.
"the legal standard is everything." So when 99 out of 100 claims are struck out you have what left? Certainly not a patent that will be approved. Or at best, 1% of the original patent.
"Hey, look, you can use hindsight and claim it's obvious and not novel all you want, but until you show some evidence that pre-dates the application, and not just your repeated unsupported assertion, you've proven nothing. It's like you're calling someone guilty without requiring any evidence. If you find due process to be so boring, then maybe this isn't a debate you should be having."
Yawn. It's not hindsight to claim that animation of an icon is obvious. Adding a touch screen (which from a technical perspective is no different than any other screen and input device) to the equation is not patent worthy. I'm actually disturbed you think it deserves protection. Animated icons (which is what the unlock image is) have been around since the early 90s. Linking animation on screen to user input has been around since at least the early 90s as well.
You seem to lack insight into the technical aspects of implementing these functions and whether they are technically obvious or not. That is always a problem with the lay-person addressing programming and computing devices.
I ask you. Is Apple's implementation of slide to unlock achievable under Micron's patent? Yes of course it is. Under Mircron's patent you could do it with or without an image. You could animate the image if you so chose. You could require any sort of pattern. That fact they didn't specify animated icons is because it's like specifying in a patent application for a new car chassis that it could be painted red (or any other colour). It's obvious. Since I believe that the animated icon is an obvious implementation, I believe that the Neonode video shows the invention in it's totality (and is therefore not anticipatory). Adding animation is arbitrary and obvious (as per my colour example). Changing the icon from a lock to an unlock image is arbitrary and obvious. You could use images of Nyan cat or puppies. It's just arbitrary colours to represent the function of unlocking a computing device.
I point you to Germany's ruling on this non-patent.
"If you can't support a conclusion with evidence, then legally, you have nothing."
Mate, this is Slashdot. There is a standard of evidence under the current US rules that my argument may not be sufficient for. This is not a US court of law of course (i.e. I'm not challenging it in court, I'm challenging it publicly on the grounds of having technical expertise that makes this obvious to me and millions of others like me). In short, I'm arguing that it is clear to a technically minded person (this happens to be my field - it doesn't make me an authority because of that of course) and that the prior art shows the "invention" - not anticipat
It's such a shame you're locked into your own reference frame without being able to see out of it. It may come with time.
I readily already admit there is no unlock image. As I clearly wrote, changing a graphic from a lock to a graphic representing unlock is not novel. It's two sides of the same coin. "Oh ours is unique, it says 'unlock', not 'locked'' doesn't fly. Images themselves are covered under copyright.
"Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim."
It's pretty clear that I did address it when I pointed out that if that is the only claim to novelty then they are clutching at straws.
You can clearly see that the actions of the Apple patent are described under the Micron patent, sans the changed animated graphic. I'll repeat that changing the graphic and making it animated are not novel. Additionally they are completely obvious (and not just because they'd been previously implemented in various forms on other computing devices).
Prior art is just that, prior art. Having shown clear prior art you deny that it is for some unknown reason. You can deny it until the cows come home, but there are a whole lot of people (as in almost everyone else who sees it) who agree that it is prior art.
"Micron describes everything in the patent! ... oh, wait, no it doesn't... "
Oh wait, no I didn't write that. I wrote Apple's first claim is "encompassed in Micron's first claim". Learn to copy and paste. When enough of the claims are covered by proven claims in other patents there is no claim to be had.
Bored meaning "bored". Don't push your parapraxis of "frustrated and ashamed" out onto others, deal with it yourself. Perhaps take a remedial course in English while you're at it.
Hey look, you can believe it's novel and non-obvious if you like and I'm pretty sure nobody is going to convince you otherwise. You stick to it. Keep believing.
I'm still bored by you. Bored that I've come across the umpteenth person that even with clear evidence of something denies it - or even the clear possibility of it.
In conclusion I'll take it a step further. All software patents are complete crap and deserve zero protection at all. Zero.
Hey look, I'll formulate your reply to save you the trouble (and it will save me the trouble of reading your reply).
"You still haven't shown me anything at all. The Micron patent doesn't cover any of the Apple patent at all. The Neonode doesn't show someone using a 99% similar version of sliding to unlock. Nobody understands this patent like me!!!".
Orly?
From Micron's patent's first claim "a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory."
Apple's first claim is clearly encompassed in Micron's first claim.
In the Neonode video at 4:13 their is an image of a lock icon. The presenter performs an action synonymous with the claims in Apple's (and Micron's) patent which unlocks the phone. The only difference is the background icon is not animated and is a lock versus an unlock icon. Changing icons is not novel (clearly). So does changing the icon and making it animated make for a novel invention? I say no.
You're boring me.
"The patent is about automatically detecting useful data in arbitrary plaintext (say dates or phone numbers in an email)"
Data mining plaintext for useful information, indicating it in a UI, and being able to manipulate or perform an action from that data predates the existence of Apple as a company. It's one of the primary functions of computers that was figured out very early on. I'd call that about as obvious as it gets.
http://news.techeye.net/mobile... which talks of:
"Micron's patent covering a "system and method for controlling user access to an electronic device" was given a US Patent 8,352,745 in January 2013 but it claims priority to an original application filed in February 2000 and lists Jim McKeeth as inventor."
http://kschang.hubpages.com/hu... which talks about, among other things the Neonode N1 - a working prior art example.
Note how this patent has been treated in Europe.
Apple's slide to unlock was non-novel (already done) and could probably be considered obvious (if multiple groups independently came up with the same solution then it is likely an obvious solution - assuming they were totally independent).
Treating a phone number like a hyperlink is very obvious. Of course the vast, vast majority of older devices, like "those...before 2000" didn't have touch screens to be able to easily implement it.
I don't know the particular methodologies used.
Reported mtbf for SSDs is higher than regular HDDs.
I can't remember where but there was a recent release of stats from a data center (similar to the stats in question) that had SSDs vs HDDs and the SSDs came out on top for reliability.
I think a major factor that makes SSDs more reliable is that they are not sensitive to shock or vibration - so in a laptop/tablet/phone dominated world, you will have much higher reliability with SSDs than traditional HDDs.
Yes. They are getting cheaper and faster. They are already much faster than magnetic rotating discs in read/write/iops.
Don't be facetious, you can't get a 1TB SSD for 100$ yet and you know this. The OP clearly wrote "getting cheaper", he didn't say they have parity on price.
The reliability rate for current generation SSDs is now higher than traditional HDDs. So in regards to " run 24hours/24hours for 5 years without any problems ?", take your pick, they can all do it better than a traditional HDD.
I think traditional HDDs have precious few years left.
Has it been entered into the criminal code at a federal level?
This should definitely be a civil matter and the FBI should have no involvement in small time cases like this (what a waste of money, up next the FBI giving parking tickets).
What "said papers"? I'll look up "TheTurtlesMoves" and see how many hits it comes up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method - I've been familiar with it since high school. I'm also familiar with it's limits. These limits are not a problem if one admits that they exist.
I'm happy for you to provide some evidence that I'm wrong. If you do I'll happily take in that new information. One of the key tenets of science is to pass on understanding of one's results - it's a shared discipline. I'd love to read your papers. Please provide some links.
"your still an idiot" - an ironic typo. Don't worry it happens to everyone. I'll be hit by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law in a moment.
You calling me (or anyone) an idiot because you disagree with me paints you in a terribly arrogant light. You should be ashamed of yourself. It borders on bigotry.
I have read " a bit of philosophy in science". It doesn't change what we can and can't test. It doesn't take away the technological limits of what we are able to currently achieve.
"And you don't do that for evolution, which is also an ongoing process plus fossil record, cuz why?"
We don't because we can't (we don't have the technology - yet). I.e. we can't yet observe it happening. We have observed that it has happened. Please note how that is worded - you keep missing subtleties like this.
"Just because we're pointing out your concern trolling for what is is, doesn't mean we haven't read the thread."
"We're" not pointing anything out. I'm pointing out that if you read the whole thread you'd see what the argument is about - which you have missed.
"Argument by selectively quoting authority."
A call to authority does have its limits - in this case I'm not saying it's true because of who said it. In this case it's a verifiable statement and I quoted the authority that stated it - one can't argue that it's a call to authority simply because another is quoting an authority - what would be the point in having experts (authorities) in a topic otherwise?
"Which we have, again,"
No - we - haven't. I set the topic - you're actually talking about something else (very related though), sadly, without realising it.
"Arguing that we haven't seen DNA changes in organisms is like arguing that there's no evidence that we live in a heliocentric solar system."
No - I - didn't. I never argued that we haven't seen "DNA changes in organisms". Of course we have. Can you see my talking about the long term evolution experiment with escherichia coli? A perfect example of us detecting changes in DNA. The argument isn't about that. The argument is about how we detect it. We detect it by comparing cells and looking to see if it has changed. If it has changed then it has mutated - but we did not observe the mutation happening - we detected it post mutation. Is this clear yet? Here is an earlier quote from me:
"we currently deduce it has occurred through comparison of genomic data. I.e. we compare an antecedent and descendant cell, if there are novel changes then it has mutated. But we don't and haven't observed it occurring at this level. As in watch it happen real-time (which is what I meant in case there is confusion)."
Are you with it yet? I'm pretty sure you didn't read the whole thread - I had to make myself clear to another person too so the argument was clarified for anyone to see (in this small portion of the thread). Catch up mate, you're boring me.
At this point you can either admit that you missed the subtleties of the argument and that you were arguing something that wasn't ever in question, or you can delude yourself in the face of clear evidence (i.e. the thread) otherwise.
"You can't test that the Grand Canyon was formed via erosion."
Since it is still being formed we can test that it is being made by erosion and then extrapolate back in time. Either way red herrings are just that (red herrings).
"Laughably false."
It's probably better if you read the whole thread and then show some evidence that we have observed it happening (not post occurrence, but during the event). That's what this is about. I hate it when people can't keep up. Remember to email Sir Richard Dawkins and tell him he's wrong as he readily admits what I asserted - in fact I initially learned it from his talk.
" Fruit flies. Bacteria. This is elementary-school level biology, here."
Fruit flies what? I assume you mean drosophila. Bacteria? What about it? Do you have something to say about the several million varieties of bacteria? Random nouns don't mean much in an argument.
It's not ridiculous or stupid. It's an incredibly important appreciation of the limitations of our abilities in science. (btw, we haven't imaged an electron afaik).
You're anecdotal assertion that "about 98% of current "science" that hasn't even been observed and never ever will be" is unsupported. I recognise the sentiment you are trying to express though, and yes, a significant amount of science has never been observed. As above, this is super important as a recognition of where we have good experimental knowledge and where we have intelligently made hypotheses to fill in our observational gaps. I'm fine with this as the state of our science - humans are really good at filling in the gaps by using our brains. But I don't subscribe to pretending that we've seen or know something that we don't.
The discussion started with assertions about what could be tested (using the scientific method). I've rightly pointed out there are parts of science that are assumed by your average Joe to have been thoroughly tested but are not.
I politely asked for some papers to support your claims. Do you have them? This is a related field of study for me so I'm genuinely interested. There is no shame in saying that you've read this at some time but don't remember where or when (it happens to me all the time).
Well that would be cool, but I'm not sure you're correct. Afaik we don't have the technology to simultaneously observe and decode genomic data during cell replication phases.
I believe we currently deduce it has occurred through comparison of genomic data. I.e. we compare an antecedent and descendant cell, if there are novel changes then it has mutated. But we don't and haven't observed it occurring at this level. As in watch it happen real-time (which is what I meant in case there is confusion).
Or maybe Sir Richard Dawkins says it best:
Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html
That was in 2004 and I readily accept the possibility of this changing (and it eventually will if it hasn't already).
Can you point me to some papers to support your claims?
Happy new year!
And happy new year good person!!!!
And happy new year!!!
Interesting twist!
An axiom is also a starting point for reasoning (according to my sometimes always almost never correct friend wikipedia... )
So maybe he is arguing this point as his starting point, as per "One fundamental issue is whether or not conscious awareness is simply a by-product of complex intelligent systems."?
Anyway, is it as cut and dry as you thought?
Thanks.
For the record I wrote "largely untestable" and by this I did not mean entirely untestable. Maybe it wasn't worded the best.
You answered it for me "It may be currently difficult/impossible to perform molecular level tests of evolution" - which is close enough to the sentiment I was trying to convey. It's just a reflection on the state of the art. It's my sentence with the "yet!!!" in it. The "yet!!!" was meant to mean that I think it will happen one day.
It is just a matter of time (so to speak).
Perhaps, considering I already put some thought into questions like yours (as you can see from the comment history), you should go back and reread my original statement and you'll see the answer to your question (the same could be said for your first post - I was polite enough to point out you missed the answer to your posit written in my first post).
My apologies, not worded the best, I can now see there are two interpretations of what I wrote.
I meant 'the "definition" ', and not ' "the" definition'. The definition of god is quite broad and what I wrote fits within it.
I would rewrite it as: It fits within the scope of the definition of a god.
Suffice to say, any being that can control time and space with a thought is a god to us both comparatively (as a species) and metaphysically.
Your idea for that particular experiment is valid - it's the one I quoted "e. coli long term evolution experiment".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
That is very much a tip of the iceberg experiment proving that it occurs (useful really). It doesn't test for or show the intracellular mutation that is going on (that constitutes evolution). Nor does it test for multi-cell organism evolution (which is where the money is).
http://psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/ai/consciousness.html
Would that fit the bill?
I'd add that a gradient between species does exist - just not *across species* as he expects. Instead the gradient exist backwards in time. Perhaps this would help him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
Oh to share your certainty of what definitely is or isn't. I'm afraid I'm trapped in a standard human body, with limited perception of the universe, and limited intelligence.
"I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist."
Is that a call to authority?
"I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist."
An alien civilisation could have evolved to the point where they can control time and space with a thought. This fits the definition of a god. I know I don't know whether they exist or not.
"The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god"."
And same said civilisation could be as dumb as poles (just so you know I'm not conflating terms).
"They are tyrants otherwise, and if not, surely not deserving of the title "god"."
Hubris. Don't think human intelligence is automatically able to perceive all of the tyrants intelligence (and therefore purpose to which you were created in said hypothesis). By your definition, if they are in full control of your reality, you may not be as free as you perceive yourself to be - and thus your choice of not to worship comes into question (did you choose? how would you know you chose?).
"What if the Christians are right, and I am wrong?"
Why single this one religion out? You forgot about a dozen others. Good on you that you are advancing the sciences. Keep in mind millions upon millions of religious and non-religious people alike the world over are advancing the sciences as well. How about you give them a shout out too?