Total posts: 4,363
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
If you, Stephen, and I all have a red apple in our hand, can we not all claim it? Why should I be singled out as the interloper? Because it's popular to do that, today? Bad reason, my friend. Just a bad reason. Did I start a string saying I have a red apple, and neither of you did? So, since you both also have a red apple, or maybe my apple is not a red as yours, or you laugh because my apple does not look like an apple at all, or is the last apple from the tree, you're both entitled to tell me my apple is a myth?
Nope, an objective judge would cry foul. There's just not that many of them around, yeah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
my perspective on Stephen's post is a high-level inquiry about the multiple similarities between religions around the world that are all BC/BCE and Christianity claims.
Until you realize, as I reminded Stephen, that his first source was not original to that source, but a critic's quotation of him. And many others have depended on this second0-hand witness? A critical second-hand witness. That there are other myths is not at all recent news, just as it is not exactly news that creation, the flood, Moses in the reeds, Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Elijah riding to heaven on a chariot, etc, etc, etc have similar stories up the yin-yang without a paddle.
So what? Mankind thinks alike around the world? Not news, either. And that does not take high-level inquiry. So much for window dressing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Does it not concern you that your man-god Jesus is certainly not the first dying and rising deity. Or the first man-god to be born of a "virgin, in a stable, and was able to turn water into wine"? Allegedly
Did I say Jesus was the first of myths to be born to a virgin in a stable, etc? Find my statement of those and give them to me. Not me, said the cow to the little red hen. But you sure do like to invent with abandon, don't you? Keep it up; you're lookin' good to a blind man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Does it bother you at all that no surviving manuscript of Celsus' On the True Doctrine exists, and is only known in its best completion by a critic, Origen, whose Against Celsus, allegedly quoted Celsus extensively? Alleged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
which is the association being made by fauxlaw
Did I say that? No. Darwin specifically avoided the subject of human brain function as a process of evolution in On the Origin of Species, and you'd know that if you read it completely, but in no way did he allege that it was not a factor of evolution. At the time, he did not know how to deal with it, and his notes on the subject confirm that. However, when he wrote The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex [have you read that?], he did entertain it. I'll let you figure out how, but don't make accusations in ignorance of the facts. You might go back and review the title of this string, and who launched it.
Created:
-->
@Hyades
though I find the secrecy useless.
Useless to you, yes. That's by design. Get it?
I cannot legitimately consider that you have personally benefited from Trump's presidency
That is also by design. Like I said, you figure out your path. I've set mine, and did so prior to 2017. That Trump has contributed to the success of my investment path, I claim regardless of your doubt. Doubt is on you, entirely, and you're welcome to it. What do I have to prove to you? Naught.
I am also curious as whether or not you included taxation in your figures.
Of course I do. However, regardless of my assets, my investment growth is structured such that most of it [no, I will not disclose a percentage] is tax-deferred such that I probably pay less in taxes than you do. At my age, I've paid grandly; I don't anymore. I'm building wealth for my children and grandchildren at this point because I am generous to me and mine. The rest of you: go fish.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Given that there is no upper limit to available money supply, nor to the number of people who take advantage of it, no, I do not. Zero sum implies an equitable winner:loser ratio. I don't buy it.
Created:
-->
@Hyades
My investment strategy, like my favorite fishing spot, is not for you. It's mine. Find yours, because my situation is not yours.
Yes, real estate does represent a good portion of it, but that is also particular to me. Like is said; location, location, location. One property is in Silicon Valley, owned since 1978, mortgage-free and earning $5G/mo, and whose value has appreciated by a factor of 17.5:1 since.
Yes, I attribute my gains in the market to Donald Trump. Any President who thinks like Trump will succeed like Trump for those who seriously invest, but Biden is not Trump and never will be. I will tell you my investment strategy is simple: ambition, planning, execution, and a solid belief that the money supply, contrary to Oba'a, is not limited. That's all I'll say.
Created:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
what aere my half-=assed beliefs [you must know wha tthey are to make the claim they're half-assed], and which huge chunk of the Bible am I ignring since I've read all of it in four different languages. Match that, or maybe you're missing the chunks. You're waiting for clarity as if it was a parade?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
What? No copper use specifically for cookware before Paul Revere? What history says that? It is well documented that Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans used copper to fashion cookware. Copper is plentiful, easily tooled even when cool, and is a great conductor of heat; all properties useful in making cookware. Copper was the first metal used in large scale for cooking, tooling, jewelry, etc. And my sixth great grandfather worked it in 1625, by which time it was a worldwide material in use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
Not without training those workers for higher functions, such as auditing the automated process, because no process is perfect, nor will a one of them produce indefinitely without maintenance, and continuous improvement. Unemplyment should not be the result of automation, and ned not be.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
What do you know of the second temple period? Not much, apparently, since the Pharisees are direct descendants of that corrupt period. The "law" they practiced was so far removed from the Law of Moses, as given, there was reason why Jesus called them a generation of vipers. Who do you think populated the crowd in Pilate's courtyard, screaming for the crucifixion of Jesus? The Mickey Mouse Club?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You probably had no sixth great grandfathers!
Oh, but I did. The one I speak of immigrated from Scotland and set up shop in Maine in 1625 after arriving in Boston earlier that year. His name was John. My direct lineage through my father goes back to the 12th century. Sorry, did I miss advising that I am LDS? Genealogy is in our blood. I'm also a direct 4th generation descendant of Brigham Young.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The details of China's patent policy is not necessarily evidence of good design, relative to American patents, but China does have a patent policy, ands functioning system, along with their skillful assailment of IP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hillaryous Balloon Girl literally and figuratively has no balls
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Paul Revere fashioned copper pots. So, in fact, did my sixth great grandfather in 1625 in Wells, Maine. Did the one invalidate the other?
Over how many generations did different peoples of the earth invent and employ the wheel. Did one invalidate the others?
Who made paper?
A million other such events occurred worldwide. Did any invalidate the others?
Take your Moses and Sargon stories and accept that both likely occurred and neither invalidated the other.
Created:
Posted in:
Planning the pandemic in advance would indicate a superlative ability to innovate, but, the facts are, no other country, per capita, has as many awarded patents, the scale of innovation, after all, as the United States. In fact, all other countries, combined, do not have the number of patents awarded to the United States. This was an idea conceived only after the crisis happened, much like Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Created:
-->
@Singularity
You are not saved through your works.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called theFriend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. - James 2:
It seems that not only are works necessary for salvation, but better yet, exaltation [did you know there is a difference?], but we are saved by faith, by the grace of God, and by works. Not by any one, but all three.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I'm afraid of nothing, I reject your vile attitude toward me, make a civil argument, and I will not allow it directed to me. Change your attitude, I'll lift my block.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
The 10 commandments are still valid, you still should not be eating pork, as delicious as that is etc.
As I said, the Law of Moses was fulfilled and replaced by a higher law. Yes, the 10 commandments are still valid, but, if anything, augmented:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:
That's a higher law, isn't it?
38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5
That's a higher law, isn't it?
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bnless them that curse you, do good to them that hatye you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Matthew 5.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bnless them that curse you, do good to them that hatye you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Matthew 5.
That's a higher law, isn't it?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as you Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matthew 5
That's a very high law, isn't it?
Would you like to rethink that, as I said?
The statement by Jesus was not meant to call the pharisees evil either
7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matthew 3.
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matthew 3.
Want to rethink how righteous the Pharisees were?
Created:
-->
@Singularity
As I said, Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses. He became the ultimate blood sacrifice after all that could be done by the Israelites keeping the Law of Moses, which law, relative to blood sacrifice, had been kept from the time of Adam, who taught his sone, Cain and Abel, the purpose of blood sacrifice. You will recall that Genesis 4 tells of us Abel's sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock were acceptable to the Lord, but that Cain's offering emblems of his crop as unsatisfactory to Him. For this unacceptable sacrifice, Cain was cursed. Genesis 8 teaches us that after the flood, Noah offered burnt offerings from his flock. Abraham, as well, offered blood sacrifice of his flock, and did so until, when his beloved Isaac was still a boy, God commanded that Abraham offer his son in sacrifice [Genesis 22], and God stay4ed Abraham's hand just as he was about to follow through on God's command; God now knowing that Abraham would obey even in that. The would-be sacrifice of Isaac was in similitude of God, who did not stay His own hand in the sacrifice of His only begotten son, Jesus. Meanwhile, we read in Exodus 20 of the necessity of blood sacrifice by the Israelites. It is further explored in Leviticus 5 that the offering of unblemished animals of several kinds are offered, but that the offering be made for the seeking of forgiveness of sin, that their trespasses my be resolved by blood sacrifice. This trespass offering was fulfilled by hte ultimate blood sacrifice f Jesus, himself, who bled for the souls of all who will repent of their sins. This is further explored in Hebrews 11, and 13. Just as you own quotation of Matthew relates:
"But anyone who obey's God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you - unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers or religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdsom of Heaven."
Also the pharisees were not evil.
You maybe want to rethink that based on your own quoted verse? Who does not enter tyhe Kinghdom of Heaven? Evil people, that's who.
Thus is the substantiation that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, and the law of the Gospel replaced the need of blood sacrifice by the offering of a penitent heart and contrite spirit, trading shame for sin with forgiveness from God.
Created:
-->
@Vader
- Polonius. Yet here, Laertes? Aboard, aboard, for shame!The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,And you are stay'd for. There- my blessing with thee!And these few precepts in thy memoryLook thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue, 545Nor any unproportion'd thought his act.Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar:Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;But do not dull thy palm with entertainment 550Of each new-hatch'd, unfledg'd comrade. BewareOf entrance to a quarrel; but being in,Bear't that th' opposed may beware of thee.Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice;Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment. 555Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;For the apparel oft proclaims the man,And they in France of the best rank and stationAre most select and generous, chief in that. 560Neither a borrower nor a lender be;For loan oft loses both itself and friend,And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.This above all- to thine own self be true,And it must follow, as the night the day, 565Thou canst not then be false to any man.Farewell. My blessing season this in thee!
- Hamlet, I,iii
- The best advice an old man, a king, had for a college student, his son, leaving home for an education. But the advice fits so many situations such as this. You're yung, and this, too, shall pass and sewrve as a reminder that in weakness we are challenged to gain strength. In sorrow, seek gladness in your own heart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
The only one I can change: me. I should not claim power to change anybody else. Besides, if I tried to change someone else, I'd be guilty of denial of a famous Oscar Wilde quote: "Be yourself; everyone else is taken."
And that is what I'd change: be more of myself. "To 'my' own self be true." [Wm Shakespeare] "And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." [Hamlet, I,iii]
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What the Pharisees totally misunderstood in Christ's commentary, when they "reminded him" [he needed no reminder] that the Law of Moses required her life by stoning, is that Jesus Christ was their long-awaited Messiah, whom they did not recognize at all, and that he was come to fulfill the Law of Moses; that is, to replace it with a higher law; in this instance, the law of forgiveness. Further, the Pharisees were a radical version of Judaism which had become corrupt in the Temple ceremony 600 years previous, in the times of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Malachi, so corrupting themselves that Babylon took them captive. Now, 600 years later, the Pharisees thought they were keeping the Law, but had no sense of what the Law of Moses was for, and how it would be fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah. These were evil men, and Jesus knew them as such.
Jesus did not "step in," as you put it. They stepped up to him, and, as you said, laid a perjury trap for him which Jesus saw through and confounded them by his "cast the first stone" business for whomever was sinless. The Pharisees knew in their hearts they were evil and corrupt, not at all sinless. Thus, they disbursed, shamed by their own words. That's what stopped them, not Jesus stepping in. In the process, he taught anyone listening that, if not the new sheriff in town, he was the fulfillment of the Law, and the people saw it and bear record. So, yes, in reality, Jesus did spare her life, but at a cost to her: she was to change her ways to be totally forgiven. This is appropriate because repentance is not just saying you're sorry, only to commit the same sin again, thus turning the confession seat into a turnstile. It doesn't work that way. Repentance requires a broken heart and contrite spirit; remorse for sin, AND a commitment to change one's heart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Taking you at your word that a thought experiment is the thrust of your posit, I'll ask in reply whether or not God can or cannot lift a weight greater than what He can lift: why would He need to try? It's really my response to all such challenges to God's abilities: in the argument of His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, many assume He is compelled to use the full measure of His abilities at all times? Again; why should He? If all he needs is a fly swatter, why should He over burden Himself with a nuclear weapon?
It is not that He refuses to waive His hand and all human suffering is eliminated, as we expect, or He is not God, consider that he allows suffering to take place because often, our suffering is due to our own actions; not His. We cause the suffering of others; let us solve our own problems with one another. It's what we're supposed to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
It's really pretty simple. You like to use ranges of data to explain rapid climate change, but I cannot use the same principle to explain placental mammals? You 80 to 140M years is a range. You used it. That's your data. I'm saying the range includes 140M years, meaning that evolution of placental mammals cold have begun as early as that. You do not get to truncate that range and say it only occurred 80M years ago. Just like your ilk want to claim a 30-year span as an example of rapid climate change. You ask why 1981 to 2020, which is actually 40 years, but that's beside the point. Because they first established 1950 to 1980, and decided to change it it to 1981 to 2020, that's why. When one model doesn't fit their data, they change the model. That's how climate science works, which is why it is not "in."
i dont think anyone is only looking at the last 30 years.
Yeah, no one. Just NOAA, and IPCC. Nobodies. I'll accept that.
So, where;'s your citation that the earth has never seen temperatures and sea levels like we see today? You keep claiming it. Show me.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas. Of course it is. Does man contribute to it. Of course. But, is it at the highest levels ever seen on earth? Show me.
How often is man dropped, or takes himself, to a dessert or the arctic without clothes and without his tech? That's a straw man argument if ever there was one. Try an argument of some practicality. Savanna banana. Yeah, that's a pretty good climate, but it's obvious man has adapted to more severe climates in both directions, and survives with clothes and other tech. Take it away, sure, many will die. So, that's how we explain a threshold of climate today to justify the Green New Deal, for example? Take everything away? Well, that is the proposal of the GND: net-zero. Sure, great argument. So take your net zero out of every green energy turbine in existence on earth. What to you have? No energy, that's what. No petroleum to lubricate the turbine; no energy. No petroleum to make your plastics parts in electric cars and solar panels, none of them, either. Al Gore has not yet invented his green gooey juice, yet. Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
Since the post #1 is flawed all day long into the night, it and the rest is one-on-none drivel. He states a triangle is 360˚ Nope. All triangles sum 180˚, no exceptions, not even in cartesian coordinated cubes in cubes [a tesseract, but who's counting?] Then, this is compounded by saying two triangles are 720˚, which sends Pythagoreans into grokless voids of 5D. Yeah, spin is one of a range of motions, and this one is spinning out of control, no matter how he spins it.
By the way, a tetrahedron is four triangular faces, not two, making a combination of angles yielding 720˚ If one can be screwed up to mistake a triangle as 360˚, who knows what will be torqued next? Maybe time to retrograde and rethink the entire spacial set of one-on-nuns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Get a Mac. I was broke on the pane of windows in the 90s and never looked back. Windows copied just enough of Mac to make Windows stupid, but avoid copyright infringement. It has never been worse than now.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
The time and effort one goes into [or should] to prepare arguments, rebuttals and defenses and citations of supporting sources does not deserve to have their efforts dashed only because another who has agreed to participation in the debate then forfeits that debate for whatever reason. The points, and the award of a victorious debate should belong to the one who expressed the better argument for the posit of the debate, regardless of the actions of the forfeiting opponent. Why penalize the winner for the actions of the opposition. What, the forfeiting side should have a feel-good participation trophy rather than award points and victory to the one who best demonstrated the willingness to debate in all rounds? Nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
That's "scripture" for the well informed.
However, you raise a valid point that many will cherry pick verses, and are rather ignorant of context... including you.
Cherry-picking is easy: you look up a subject, get biblical references, and quote them, often without actually picking up the Bible just to assure that the greater context of their quoted verse actually does match their intent of quotation in the first place, such as your mention of the ten commandments [yeah, Exodus 20, and your Deut. citation]. According to Religion News Service, less than 20% of American adults have read the Bible cover-to-cover, with an MOE of ±3.1%, meaning that as few as 16% have done so. And I'll wager the true figure is less than that; I encounter very few people who have done so, and their citations such as yours demonstrate that very point.
However, "the Law of Moses" is spread throughout the Pentateuch, not just hose highlights. Of that, you appear as ignorant of the subject as those you accuse.
For example, your citations of "support for slavery" and "killing babies and raping women" are nonsense, and ignore the greater understanding of the context in both cases. What you claim as support for, or condoning of these behaviors simply because they are mentioned does not imply anything of the kind. They are mentioned because they are recognized evils of men, not that they are acceptable activities. Context, my friend, is what many, both your Bible-bashing verse-pickers, and your own attitude misplace in the process of discussion of biblical concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Why you cannot research your own answers to your questions is beyond me. Do you know what it is? Research? If so, why don’t you do it, yourself?
The climate’s margin of error relative to global temperature fluctuation is answered by https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
Which gives you the background, according to NOAA, on global surface temperature anomalies factored by monitoring references [measurement methods with shifts in use of equipment ands their calibration; exactly what I’ve been talking about. You think I’m just talking off the top of my head? This is YOUR data. Note the various versions of measurement datasets, for example, the latest being less than a year old. However, since 1981, we’ve been using the arbitrary period of 1981 – 2020 as the 30-year-period with which to establish a baseline climate model of temperature, greenhouse gasses, sea level, etc. Why that particular 30-year period? I’ll let you guess, but a clue will be revealed by further following these links from the reference above: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php
and https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly-version-4
The latter has a graph at the bottom of the page [click to show], which indicates the global temperature variation from 1880 to 2020. From 1981 to 2020, the rise is most dramatic, but the variation remains about the same; roughly 1˚C, with a variation of ±0.25˚C, or a total swing of 0.5˚C. That means the margin of error is ±25% - a fantastically excessive moe. In statistics, if your margin of error exceeds ±3%, you’re into unreliable territory by Six Sigma standards.
As for tidal shifts, as I said, the intertidal zone is a sensitive ecology driven by the tidal shifts, which have naught to do with weather. Tidal shifts are functions of the sun and moon’s respective magnetic fields, not weather.
I disagree with your outcome of speciation changes because “There has never been a jungle animal adapting for a polar or desert climate.”I just knew you’d go there, and the effect is, you completely ignore the most obvious animal to adapt to just such wide extremes as desert to polar environments: man. Density is a cerebral concern.
The climate’s margin of error relative to global temperature fluctuation is answered by https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
Which gives you the background, according to NOAA, on global surface temperature anomalies factored by monitoring references [measurement methods with shifts in use of equipment ands their calibration; exactly what I’ve been talking about. You think I’m just talking off the top of my head? This is YOUR data. Note the various versions of measurement datasets, for example, the latest being less than a year old. However, since 1981, we’ve been using the arbitrary period of 1981 – 2020 as the 30-year-period with which to establish a baseline climate model of temperature, greenhouse gasses, sea level, etc. Why that particular 30-year period? I’ll let you guess, but a clue will be revealed by further following these links from the reference above: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php
and https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly-version-4
The latter has a graph at the bottom of the page [click to show], which indicates the global temperature variation from 1880 to 2020. From 1981 to 2020, the rise is most dramatic, but the variation remains about the same; roughly 1˚C, with a variation of ±0.25˚C, or a total swing of 0.5˚C. That means the margin of error is ±25% - a fantastically excessive moe. In statistics, if your margin of error exceeds ±3%, you’re into unreliable territory by Six Sigma standards.
As for tidal shifts, as I said, the intertidal zone is a sensitive ecology driven by the tidal shifts, which have naught to do with weather. Tidal shifts are functions of the sun and moon’s respective magnetic fields, not weather.
I disagree with your outcome of speciation changes because “There has never been a jungle animal adapting for a polar or desert climate.”I just knew you’d go there, and the effect is, you completely ignore the most obvious animal to adapt to just such wide extremes as desert to polar environments: man. Density is a cerebral concern.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
Searle... never closed the possibility towards the idea that computers could create thinking.
And there is the crux of the failure of the posit that a "machine should run the world." Until A.I. demonstrates the actually ability to think, that is, to rise above the processing of data, for whatever purpose, to developing a data set of its own devising, wholly different, syntactically and semantically, from data it has been fed, it is incapable of properly running the world. It must, in a sense, achieve mastery of the distinction between a cold, 1-0-ciphered justice and warm, infinite-ciphered mercy. If it cannot tell me the time of day on Mars, it certainly cannot read my heart, can it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, now. Time is the same everywhere. That’s no more practical an answer than my HomePod’s previous answer, “I don’t know where that is.” Time is a construct of organizing man. Otherwise, I don’t see much purpose in it. It is only practical in function if a man is not alone, but must deal with society. Otherwise, what purpose does it have other than as a theoretical concern?
But, that’s not really the cosmic point. To demonstrate the relative uselessness of AI, I just asked HomePod a very simple question a five-year-old understands, and, if within reach of it, can respond to the request. Whereas, AI, as an “entity,” but without physical function, cannot process the request. I asked “her” [mine is set to an Aussie female], “Pass the butter, please.” Her reply, “I don’t understand.” No, she doesn’t. The request means nothing to her because the intent of the question is beyond her programming, let alone her physical attributes, which do not appeal to me in the slightest, anyway.
It’s a lot like the song lyrics from the musical and movie of the 60s, “Camalot,”wherein King Arthur, wondering what Guinevere is up to, ponders, “What are you thinking? I don't understand you. But no matter; Merlin told me once, never be too disturbed if you don't understand what a women is thinking, they don't do it very often, but what do you do while they are doing it?” More to the point, one might inquire: What is AI doing while I’m doing it [thinking]? Hint: not a bloody thing. As a sounding board; give me a woman any day of the week, because Merlin’s answer to Arthur’s question was sublime: “Just love her.” How does one love A.I.?
Consider this: Posit: God is a perfect, sentient, omnipotent Being. He is interested in creating an entity in His image. He created Adam. However, to my point, He more eloquently created Eve. But that's another story. Why did He not create A.I.?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Age, and, therefore, lived history, has its advantages, my friend. However, a warning, assuming you're young. Beware 50; after that age, never trust a fart. Hence, the following, as you are, I believe, a student of art; written, that is, an Italian sonnet [the form usually employed by Shakespeare, and of personal composition]:
Ode on a Commode: A Toilet Subtlty
There comes more frequently undone,
A mean and cruel and flatted course,
Such bubbling rumbles from the source,
The sphincter terminus of digestion
To interrupt all else and seek refuge
In porcelain; clean and white, refined;
Receptive. Oh, this may be huge!
Explosion splatters just in time.
And then once more into the breach,
Taken once more by soap and bleach,
One is reminded: ingratitude of age
That eat what may, seasoned by sage
Advice, the vice of culinary art:
Old age can never trust a fart.
©2019 by fauxlaw
Created:
Posted in:
Definitely Dark Side of the Moon. I attended a concert in 1972, before most of you were born, I'd wager, in Philly. It featured some of the tracks ultimately on the album. It was a riveting experience. The recording, remastered digitally, is a mystical experience
Created:
Posted in:
Here are five reasons it's stupid not to vote for Trump:
1. He has stimulated private industry to re-invest in itself, what has naturally stimulated the market the way it is supposed to be done, to cause a sustained growth since the election, but for the unanticipated effect of Cobvid-19, because you don't stimulate by artificial infusion of cash into the market by quantitative easement, which causes an artificial rise, followed by a fall.
2.He has stimulated private industry to re-invest in itself, which has naturally stimulated the market the way it is supposed to be done, to cause a sustained growth since the election, because the trade deals made to date, and yet to be made will cause the first real stabilization of the negative export to import trade ratio, which will have a positive effect on increasing GDP growth rate, because you do not want to have a new norm of 2% GDP growth, as Oba'a claimed.
3. He has stimulated private industry to re-invest in itself, which has naturally stimulated the market the way it is supposed to be done, to cause a sustained growth since the election, because Oba'a's "booming economy was really a series of rises and falls [see #1] such that while a casual look at the market "boom" of Oba'a was really peaks and valleys, showing an overall rise of DJIA growth of 10,000 points, but a more careful observation is that while it rose by 10,000, in the process it also lost 6,000 for a net yield rise of an ordinary 4,000 points.
4. He has stimulated private industry to re-invest in itself, which has naturally stimulated the market the way it is supposed to be done, to cause a sustained growth since the election, because in America, we build stuff. When Oba'a said "You didn't build that," he was lying, because, excepting all the private industry building of stuff, even stuff that is funded by the government, like infrastructure stuff, is still primarily built by private industry contractors; something Oba'a forgot, or never knew. He's never had a private industry job, so, maybe he really didn't know.
5. He has stimulated private industry to re-invest in itself, which has naturally stimulated the market the way it is supposed to be done, to cause a sustained growth since the election, because he has de-regulated the stranglehold Oba'a had on private industry requiring paperwork and delays and obscuring by endless investigations. Trump released the hounds of industrious accomplishment, the way America was originally built.
And, otherwise, you want to go backward?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
What is your position on climate change anyway?
Climates change. That is obvious. I question the extent to which anthropogenic cause has as much effect as IPCC claims there is, considering the variation in measurement of key parameters that exists just by measurement equipment variation and calibration, let alone the variation in computer models, as I've already discussed and about which you've offered nothing by rebuttal. If one cannot measure accurately, what's the point? The whole house of cards collapses, as it does on any science. Show me accurate, repeatable, and reliable measurements from all over the earth, then you have something. Until then; pfftt.
Confusing Sea level rise vs tides is like confusing climate vs weather.
Tidal change is climate; not weather. Just in the usually narrow strip of seashore that is submerged at high tide and exposed at low tide, called the intertidal zone, is an important ecological product of ocean tides. To wit, a climate change of a micro-climate which changes multiple times daily, rain or shine.
creatures evolve to match their environment... You did not address this argument.
I did. Twice, citing Charles Darwin's modification of your allegation, specifically that creatures of the same species differentiate in their adaptation to changing climate, and either survive, or die as a result of inter-species variation. If a single species an so differentiate, this totally invalidates your claim that "creatures evolve to match their environment." Clearly, not all species do, and that is extinction, but also clearly, within one species, some survive and some don't by the latter's lack of evolving to match their environment. Get it?
I don't want you to do a bloody thing. You should want to. I've said why. I will not repeat.
Created:
Posted in:
Apparently, none of you challenged to do so have read any material on Searle’s “Chinese Room” experiment which was specifically set up [1986, I think], to test the abilities of AI against human brain function. Just read it; it will answer a lot of questions y’all don’t even have, yet. No, it’s not a perfect scenario; there are critics with valid points, but, to date, after 34 years of argument against it, it stands as being just as valid, if not more so than critics’ options.
In the meantime, here’s a simple experiment you can do with your own “AI” devices. I have Apple HomePod [my preferred], Google Home, and Amazon Echo in my home. I gave all three what I thought was a simple task. I asked, “What is the current time at -111˚ W on Earth?” I was given a correct answer by all three devices [happened to be just after 04:00]. Then I asked, “What is the current time at -111˚ W on Mars?” My Apple HomePod gave the most intriguing answer, whereas all of them failed to provide the requested answer; a known value. It even exists as a downloadable app from NASA as of 04/07/2020; just one month ago, coincidentally. I have not yet downloaded it to my iMac. HomePod gave this reply, “I don’t know where that is.” The others gave me a familiar variation of “I can’t help with that.” At least HomePod gave me a clue to what was missing; i.e., NASA’s Mars24 app, which it could then, if had, easily access.
I offer this anecdotal evidence as demonstration of the limitations of AI. Not only is it garbage in, garbage out, if such is the case, it is always nothing in, nothing out. Whereas, knowing a few facts [I do] I could give a rough calculation of the time of day [or night] on Mars at -111˚ W. It’s day is comparable to Earth’s; 24.62 hours [about 41 minutes longer than Earth at 23.93 hours]. So, knowing Mars’ orbital position [I do], and assuming it does not have the nonsense imposition of daylight savings [it operates on UMT, anyway], plus knowing Mars’ equivalent of GMT, and, therefore, I can also determine what season it is [I do, and can] I can calculate the time at that coordinate on Mars. But, lacking that detail data, my devices have no capability to do these calculations because they do not know to reference that detail data to draw from it. HomePod can merely reply, “I don’t know where that is.” Where it is, currently, is in opposition, meaning we’re on the same side of the sun, with approximately 30˚ of arc between us. We are approaching, and Mars has just passed our relative summer solstices.
It is a simple calculation, really. With an understanding of the formula, and the data to plug into the elements of that formula, a child could do it. Without those things, A.I. could not do it now. How long until it can… who knows? Lacking pieces of the formula, I’d wager never.
In the meantime, here’s a simple experiment you can do with your own “AI” devices. I have Apple HomePod [my preferred], Google Home, and Amazon Echo in my home. I gave all three what I thought was a simple task. I asked, “What is the current time at -111˚ W on Earth?” I was given a correct answer by all three devices [happened to be just after 04:00]. Then I asked, “What is the current time at -111˚ W on Mars?” My Apple HomePod gave the most intriguing answer, whereas all of them failed to provide the requested answer; a known value. It even exists as a downloadable app from NASA as of 04/07/2020; just one month ago, coincidentally. I have not yet downloaded it to my iMac. HomePod gave this reply, “I don’t know where that is.” The others gave me a familiar variation of “I can’t help with that.” At least HomePod gave me a clue to what was missing; i.e., NASA’s Mars24 app, which it could then, if had, easily access.
I offer this anecdotal evidence as demonstration of the limitations of AI. Not only is it garbage in, garbage out, if such is the case, it is always nothing in, nothing out. Whereas, knowing a few facts [I do] I could give a rough calculation of the time of day [or night] on Mars at -111˚ W. It’s day is comparable to Earth’s; 24.62 hours [about 41 minutes longer than Earth at 23.93 hours]. So, knowing Mars’ orbital position [I do], and assuming it does not have the nonsense imposition of daylight savings [it operates on UMT, anyway], plus knowing Mars’ equivalent of GMT, and, therefore, I can also determine what season it is [I do, and can] I can calculate the time at that coordinate on Mars. But, lacking that detail data, my devices have no capability to do these calculations because they do not know to reference that detail data to draw from it. HomePod can merely reply, “I don’t know where that is.” Where it is, currently, is in opposition, meaning we’re on the same side of the sun, with approximately 30˚ of arc between us. We are approaching, and Mars has just passed our relative summer solstices.
It is a simple calculation, really. With an understanding of the formula, and the data to plug into the elements of that formula, a child could do it. Without those things, A.I. could not do it now. How long until it can… who knows? Lacking pieces of the formula, I’d wager never.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
What good is citiation if you dont actually read it?
That cuts both ways, my friend. Climate science now says that as of 2016, we have 12 years to minimize a tipping point, such as sea level, which, according to the EPA, will rise 12 to 15 ft in 100 years. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level
Business Insider predicts 8 US cities are in danger of flooding in those 100 years, but half of them perhaps never should have been built where they are. New Orleans [+ 1.5 ft], Miami [+6 ft], Atlantic City [+7 ft], and Virginia Beach [+ 10 ft] are all currently above sea level by the noted amounts. Of the other four, Houston [+105 ft], NYC [+ 33 ft], and Boston [+141 ft] are not in danger of flooding by sea level rise. Charleston [+17 ft] is on the rough edge.
From EPA, as well [same source as above] from 1880 to 2013, sea level rise was a global average of 1.5mm per year. From 1993 to 23016, however, that increased to 3.2mm per year. At that latter rate, in 100 years, sea level will rise 2,100mm [8.1 ft], which would endanger 3 of the top 4 cities noted above, all of which were poorly located in the first place. That's not a function of climate change; that's pure idiocy. But then I live at 7,500 ft. My choice, which could be that of many others, but I can barely see my neighbor's house, and his is the only one I can see. My choice; could be others. Why not? No one reads?
"creatures evolve to match their environment"
2nd repetition of that phrase. You must like it, even though it does not reflect Darwin's true thinking, as I demonstrated by citation. There is more involved that "natural selection, alone. See, it works; or should. I repeat [let's see if it sticks, this time]: "evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species [same species, mind you] will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation." https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/definitions
It doesnt matter if some mammal thrived in a different environment millions of years ago. We have mammals living today that would not survive in each others environment. Camel and hippo for another example.
Which just proveas my point: there is not one, single, ideal climate on earth, hence, the phenomenon of the Bay of Fundy in Canada mentioned in my #39, which is nothing like what New Orleans sees, and yet it is New Orleans that is in danger. Go figure. The hippos and camels don't need to, do they?
I expect that anyone making a claim that is not their original thinking should cite the source without being asked. It is a courtesy to the source, not just to demonstrate a point. That's the professional way to handle your claims. my friend, not just to satisfy me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
i also believe in its future ability to predict outcomes, or at least, predict them better than humans could.
Nice try, but, you ignore some givens:
1. A.I. is totally dependent on its acquisition of raw data from humans.
2. That source is flawed; agreed.
Therefore, from whence does it suddenly acquire its own accurate probabilities calculations if it only recognizes features of a face as individual elements, but will compose the patterns in any orientation to make face recognition? is that how it calculates outcomes better than humans? Such a design capability wold make a cat's cradle of traffic patterns. it has not yet figured out truly accurate and safe-for-others driverless vehicles, let alone design the roads in the first place, because the AI designer has not yet figured it out for himself. We still have accidents. Ergo, so will AI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Pretty sure placental mammals did not exist 140 myo.
"Pretty sure" is verified by your research. Don't make me do it for you:
"More than 90% of living mammals nourish their young in the womb. Thus, unraveling the story of the so-called placental mammals is central to understanding mammalian evolution. But pinning down their origin has been rough going. DNA evidence places the first placental mammals anywhere from 140 million to 80 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/06/placental-mammals-climb-new-tree
As for weather volatility, short of a catastrophic meteor, their climate was quite stable with changes taking tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, not a single century.
"A composite Tethyan Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous carbon and oxygen isotope curve is presented. C-isotope data provide information on the evolution and perturbation of the global carbon cycle. O-isotope data are used as a palaeotemperature proxy in combination with palaeontological information. The resulting trends in climate and in palaeoceanography are compared with biocalcification trends and oceanographic conditions favouring or inhibiting biocalcification. Positive C-isotope anomalies in the Valanginian and Aptian correlate with episodes of increased volcanic activity regarded as a source of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. A major warming pulse accompanies the Aptian but not the Valanginian C-isotope event. The observed change in Early Aptian temperatures could have triggered the destabilization of sedimentary gas hydrates and the sudden release of methane to the biosphere as recorded as a distinct negative carbon isotope pulse preceding the positive excursion. "https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/jgs/article-abstract/161/4/695/94340/Volcanism-CO2-and-palaeoclimate-a-Late-Jurassic?redirectedFrom=fulltext
According to darwin, creatures evolve to match their environment,
Excessively simplistic. Rather, "according to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation." https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/definitions This implies that in Darwin's theory, he allows for and witnessed non-specific evolution which tends to go extinct.
Curious that you do not cite sources for your claims. Why is that? Are you so certain of your credibility? I'm not ceerrtai of yours, but of mine? Well, isn't it obvious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
I said that as a nice way of saying there is no connectiom between darwin and climate change and your argument makes no sense. Please elaborate or rescind it.
You mention going back to my first question. Well, let's go back to my first question, post #1:
140M years ago, before man, placental mammals, having identical physiological systems to ours, evolved and thrived under climate conditions far more severe and variable than we experience today. So, what, exactly, is the crisis we face in 10 years, let alone now? It is an unproven issue. What, exactly, is our ideal climate condition, seeing as how the earth does not share a singular climate? One answer to our "crisis" is an evolutionary detail everyone forgets exists to potentially prevent extinction: adaptation. It is what our early ancestors [pre-human] did. Are we dumber than they were? It is either that, or we have defrocked Saint Darwin. Which is it, progressives?
The connection of Darwin to climate change is right there in our 140M-year-old placental ancestors. Do you deny that their climate was any less volatile [less scope of change] than ours? Better be certain of your footing. https://www.livescience.com/29231-cretaceous-period.html, https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/pastClimatesExamples.html
The latter is particularly interesting in calling the Cretaceous period [from 140M years ago] as having "a greenhouse climate."
Why should I claim that we have defrocked Darwin in our urgency to claim catastrophic climate change? Because, like our ancestors of the Cretaceous, we can ADAPT. We can certainly adapt to changes in ocean level measured in fractions of a cm over 40 years or more. Hell, in Canada, the Bay of Fundy, between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, has tidal shifts at the greatest rate in the world, up to 50 feet every 6 hours. They deal with it. They adapt. And you're worried about sub-cm changes? Give me a bloody break.
Your "climate science" is, at best 200 years old, yet y'all claim the science is "in." Really? Astronomy, physics, geology are thousands of years old, and none claim that. When was the thermometer invented? In the 17th century. And we started collecting temperatures, but it was not yet "climate science," it was just raw data. How accurate was the data 500 years ago? Hell, how accurate was it 100 years ago? 30 years ago? Right now, do we use the same gages, calibrated the same, on the same schedule, worldwide? No, not even now. Again, how accurate is the data? If you cannot even normalize your measurement instruments, what exactly are you doing? Creating variant data, that's what. And you're worried about fractions of degrees of change? God help us. The lunatics have overtaken the climate section of the asylum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We are talking thousands of years of development and refinement compared to less than 100 years of development and refinement,
I presume the above refers, first, to human development opposed to, secondarily, AI development. I ask: what makes you so certain our cognitive abilities were not fully developed at the outset?
Evolution is definitively a physical construct; even Darwin, observant in the distinction of physical characteristics of evolutionary development over time, in Origin of the Species, was shy to discuss mental capacity, especially when discussing human evolution. He admits this himself: "I must premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself. We are concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of the other mental qualities of animals within the same class." (Darwin, 1859, p. 207). Moreover, in the concluding chapter, he states,"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." (Darwin, 1859, p. 488). In another volume, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, "...in the sixth edition of 1872, Darwin tried to address the question of why, if greater intelligence was of obvious advantage in the struggle for life, all organisms had not evolved the mental powers enjoyed by man." "https://watermark.silverchair.com/awp283.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAnYwggJyBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggJjMIICXwIBADCCAlgGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMn6S-4hoCnefEc6_jAgEQgIICKe-z0q-XMZWoXGxsErYBluzUqEV25lFvwPR81daPz2MWbw4phrkKwwFYBhSCuFdy7GZTet-Ciioy19DhfCLv2e0OmLGTaPEJdYnpo9-xRr2ZTj40HhZMHvQ6QdErGVZ7azSbA0NyZbuIp3Kn0aTqwaXtsGneVOwx0KRY56U4hpRgkL5fwsxm2CjcHU5Nkd1_Wr0T_eyZ_d-vpqJ66pzTs41boJ5debcC9xrrWVa49jv1p9-EQ_8XKfLjp9JtJNLfg5Njt8hfz6JjrpI4KoQDHc_207liMON0ob5h8j4rPNr_vre2zt9NYp3b1uRX-lYuRlgyalAMSR4qfZnB2e91if_buj9RtVBg7cCyPX7Jgx2i3A931F-oCjAtGE_4TxuRT0rv-R8au5ZDn2Kn4dR4_oP6nBtrkn_kax1UezxfsHvLe8vGq8mAUPpPZVZW9_5ig1mfnYNiA5CBbHwLyBGSfOOFIYhSLt7yk53sYSPL1IdBFz68U-AFmmepotnil0DcMJ7WKosu_HmPkOYKUq3673xEgcYBjyYrlqQjI_VDc4qtpl7uOcM2sOFPSorM5iCyJKH2aqh6gqgHmfiDY0BcSeGXaezQ-X_NhHnDZ2HL9qHxZ_06zwmaXvmitsQFUEnxyfJo_ZeyQNsA2EatOv2YPKgwQdjS__zmNdGdpBxKc52elXDI13F4xbdLJRQ2zMphV2_Q1T--C-i3HIanzAKI0MjtjJZP0y6Uuvw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Darwinian adaptation, aka evolution, takes a ton of time.
Sure, that's what Darwin proposed, and is as flawed as is Holdane's Dilemma insisings that Darwin's model of evolution cannot possibly be accurate because of the excessive variety of speciation we observe to have occurred over the hstory of time on earth; the which we have little idea of its scope. They were both wrong. See https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/rapid-evolution-changes-species-in-real-time wherein biologist David Reznick observed significant changes in the evolution of guppies in Trinidad. Depending on environment, predation, survivability, in just four years. one cannot say with any confidence, yet, that we fully understand just how variable evolution can be, and is.
The climate has never before changed this much in only 100 years.
That is pure conjecture. No, it is pure bunk. Numerous examples exist contrary to your claim. I'll give you just one: The immense Chicxulub crater in the Yucatàn, the asteroid event that changed the history of dinosaurs, and who knows what else, animal and plant, to extinct. In a day. Well the change actually took longer, but the initial event likely took millions of animals and plants in the singular event, not to include the aftermath over days, months, years. Well nside 100 years. Come on, stop listening to your voices insisting we are in a crisis. You are ignoring a singular advantage we have: intelligence and adaptation. Wasn't the latter, let alone the first, features if Darwin's theory? Believe him, or don't, but you cannot have it both ways. Think for yourself, because everyone else will try to think for you.
I dont understand the connection.
Yes, you do not. But is that any reason to believe nonsense? No. Understand it. That will take research, but you've been given a remarkably evolved brain. Use it.
All sudden changes are bad.
Absolutes are bad, like this one. Well, now, we had been losing people left and right to heart disease until Dr. Chrisian Barnard performed the world's first successful heart transplant in which the patient recovered consciousness for 18 days before succumbing to pneumonia. Was that a bad thing? Today, it is routine procedure, saving thousands of lives every year. Yeah, I'm suree that's a bad thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The answers to your questions are complicated, because the human brain is a much more complicated structure than is AI. It's like comparing a 12-cylinder 4-stroke engine driving a Ferrari to a single cylinder 2-stroke lawn mower engine. AI is limited to electronic collection and transfer of data across circuits. The human brain employs neural synapses between neurons that can collect/transfer data via electronic and chemical means. Further, AI is limited to handling data sets it has already received. It is only as smart as the data it has been given. It cannot, yet, extrapolate two, or more, sets of unrelated data to assimilate n+1, or n+∞, as can the human brain. https://towardsdatascience.com/the-limits-of-artificial-intelligence-fdcc78bf263b
Added to the function of synaptic processing [which AI does not have] is a process T.S. Eliot called "The Objective Correlative," a concept that implies that emotion [which AI does not spontaneously have in the myriad of expressions seen in the human], which adds meaning and complexity to memory such that a significant memory associated with deep emotion of a deeply moving event, such as a first kiss, a stunning sunset, the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, draws into the original event extraneous inputs, such as music that may have been playing in the background, or the feel of a some tactile input, which expands and intensifies the emotion felt, tied inexorably to the event experienced such that future recall of the event also carries the emotional impact of the extraneous inputs. In fact, just the memory of these extrtaneous inputs, even associated with other memories, will fire this particular memory t recall. AI cannot do that.
So, no, processes employed by AI and human, "...computer and brain both have a system and process of storing and utilising [sic] data...," are nowhere near the same processes, nor capabilities, so tryibng to define which is more "evolved and advanced" is not only useless, but a non sequitur, because just the "process of storing and utilizing data" is so much more demonstrably complicated in the human brain than AI. There's no chronology to this comparative evolutionary advance; it's two different concepts entirely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are, perhaps, trained to see art [painting in particular] as photography; it is only "good art" if it is recognizable as a a. lens of a camera sees, and not as the eye, the trained eye, can see. Van Gough did not see like a lens. And that's the beauty of human differentiation that is not a computer's "mind set" Take, for example, Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" [the young women of Avignon] https://www.google.com/search?q=Les+Demoiselles+d%27Avignon&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAI2TPYvUQBjHzcLK3uwJR6xc0FuPQ-2SyXvsxLO7QzivHzaTZJLdbN4m5u0LCJaWltqJjeCXcEtBEQQLC9FvYOlGM5PFQuye_zz_5zf_Jy-T8dGetJZkvV1qkXIYhbSYJ_48DfGC0mSOHzvdSboI4yKMyUYYzH2tKTDSNwLoakV3S9fshZrlSpD3QjP9yCk3wlQiElRUE1FksyHLag3c0yzdyDJmU1qUNogpaLk2cTg8a9PVcBPEhPvsRk0jzkB2EMi858LCjPoxskKorrkxa8zO-LsVqDGNeVwY29QI-oS4zfKyr4laBhV3FU6NKYuEazVI2YZp3ljxjsBuL_x0WWXLnubAvN6udKWjQQfrhATUH_YtMUtHWrN0DXavXJfqqmT0ytDwkg_ZiOQDocZGLyqHVLay00EcB2EGV6yl-0a1Hp5lgXGAdt6AnbHo9ipw2SusnZTdg2VZq2AvGg1hw-QLGmRtl7LJg7dQjXbYDuFOq6BqvFzyhdMgt3goWJpWrg-DTWp9Fd6Opgc_fn65Ons1evb63Ufh5QgcnCYJ9aLm3IsWhedeJOIxuPxg-1UXjTgD-7NJN2_IyLxzaQYAV-J3AUwfecVFcpa4od-InwTxg_B_NNv31YHWKfH5X7SngvhEAHtn3trxcvrQF88BuJ9EkYeLMInFE3Bzdl3C_EBiPyJa5EWV5Cu65R-Cf1uObinH7799fjO-ASas-SegnrnBXX62_2J87dSj8xNvnYTb5aJt7d6-V4YkTuJf17N56SgEAAA&biw=1808&bih=879&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=A68eZhUNX3JWtM%253A%252CxdJm-bPHaXx4kM%252C%252Fm%252F05zj4l&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTzkPCSO6WwNYanDQmjUeWwf-VPyQ&ved=2ahUKEwiJjtz79ZTpAhXbW80KHRFaCUoQ_B0wHXoECAIQAw#imgrc=A68eZhUNX3JWtM
This features four standing women, and one seated. They are all different, proceeding from "normal" to "bizarre" left to right; the faces, but also body shape. The point is, the seated woman's face is less recognizable to the human eye tan the others, mostly because of the misshapen position of the elements of the face; eyes, nose and mouth. To a computer, with these separate elements even turned upside-sown, is still recognized as a human face as if nothig were out of place. To a human, it is grotesque, because, while both human and computer use pattern recognition, the human is predisposed to put the pattern elements in their proper position. A computer doesn't care.
So, when you say it is all the same process; no, it is not. Yes, you are out to sea. You seem to want to see like a computer, and your desire is fighting with you natural human learning process. Computers don't have a "natural process." It's not so much the number of ciphers as how they are perceived. For example, I just asked Siri, "What's the time of day on Mars?" It's response, "The Martian solar day has 88775.2429 seconds." Then I asked Siri: "What is the time of day on Mars at -150W˚" It offered a website describing Mars24; a device to be launched that will, among other things, tell the time of day at a location on Mars. As of now, Siri admitted it did not know where that was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Who said I know better? You did. That's on you, bud. Your assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
5,000 years of animosity between family.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I concur with Marco. The article's title you referenced may be misleading, but the article itself is clear; the raid are in Germany, not Lebanon.
Relative to Israel, that country is virtually surrounded by nations wanting its eradication. And you complain that Israel is firing missiles? Missing half the story, my friend.
Created: