DS3618
-135
21
DS3618 has not written any posts yet.
DS3618 has not written any posts yet.
...strams fo tol a nekat evah tsum taht hctac ruoy no stargnoC .ekatsim a edam I ,tniop dooG
...uoy htiw dehsinif ma I kniht I neht tog ev'uoy tseb eht si taht fi oS
Did you read what you wrote here?
"An interesting collection of molecules occupied a certain tide pool 3.5 to 4.5 billion years ago, interesting because the molecule collection built copies of itself out of surrounding molecules, and the resulting molecule collections also replicated while accumulating beneficial mutations. Those molecule collections satisfied a high-level functional criterion called "genetic fitness", and it happened by pure chance."
So essentially ignoring the rest of your post because it just goes into more "detail" we have some molecules + lots of magic=the world as we know it. Then followed by a big please accept my straw-man argument therefore the Singularity Summit is necessary. Does that about sum it up?
Just... (read more)
"No. You are arrogant, ill informed and condescending. Basically, a troll."
Ok... fine, I am arrogant but thats because I am smarter then almost everyone here...(and I have the IQ, accomplishments... to prove it) I am condescending because most of you are just hobbiest trying to brown-nose your way into EY's good graces.
Ill informed?
Hmmmm..... coming from people who can't even identify a re-invention of the wheel when they see it or understand the opposition to make a cogent argument... fine... I take that as a compliment.
Trust me I am not a troll, just because I say things which you guys don't like doesn't make me a troll. If you want to find good examples of real trolls go to google groups...
Cheers
Humor me: I want to take an informal poll:
Questions (just yes or no) 1.) How many of you are in science fields? (by that I mean actually doing research, publishing papers etc.)
2.) How many of you have ever built an AI video game or other?
3.) How many of you have worked on or with or designed automated reasoning and or theorem proving software or algorithms?
4.) How many of you is this just a hobby?
I think those will do for now. (I am just curious from reading the post and comments which apparently someone didn't like my observation in my other comment which was valid)
I think you're re-inventing the wheel here.
"This towards the goal of creating "rationality augmentation" software. In the short term, my suspicion is that such software would look like a group of existing tools glued together with human practices."
Look at current work in AI, automated reasoning systems, and automated theorem proving.
"I guess you didn't read the wikipedia article I linked to"
If your knowledge of this comes from Wikipedia no wonder your clueless... read the links I posted: "Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone."
As I said not necessarily the Christian God.
"Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of... (read more)
Wow, you guys truly are useless...
Apparently there is to much information that is above you head since you guys follow EY who can't do the math for QM.
"Which is a serious mistake: there is too much gibberish in the world to learn it all before turning down."
So thats why you guys can't do technical work, and don't understand advanced math... I get it... its above you... cool...
Well whatever I am finished... I don't care what you do... If average people like ones here want to look foolish great what do I care...
So have fun winning your popularity contest to get a good boy from EY...
Cheers
Wrong....
http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/
Again the profound ignorance you guys have of the ideas you disagree with comes out. Its a common mistake to say they are the same with different terms look at the actual view points and you find they are not.
Educate yourself...
Creationism: based on the Bible and the Christian God
Intelligent Design: does not necessitate the Christian God and centers around the idea of irreducible complexity
Seriously I don't agree with it but at least before I go off half-cocked I actually bother to educate myself.
"decision to have creationist Michael Behe interviewed"
Errr.... wrong...
Behe is not a creationist, he actually takes the view of intelligent design which is different (don't believe me look it up). The stereo type you are reacting to hasn't been true in "christian science" community for years.
Think whatever you want about Behe but at least do him the courtesy of not misrepresenting his views so you can go on an anti-religious rant, because and I am just being blunt (its a character flaw some would say) it just sounds foolish.
"Agreed. I'll leave the original main comment, but after this, creationism (called ID or otherwise) is cause for comment removal."
I never argued for ID or creationism (the closest I have come is arguing for a more complete understanding of the topic before bashing it), I have been merely pointing out that Evolution has some serious holes. If you believe it so blindly that you can't see the holes then you haven't done your homework. If Darwin was alive today many speculate he would have never bothered to formulate evolution since the unfortunate discovery that cells are more the blobs of protoplasm. I am actually arguing for a re-working of the entire idea of a naturalistic explanation of the world.
But whatever, I give up... you guys win, your bonehead comments have won... I need not waste more time here...
En effet la règle ignorante ici (how's your french?)