Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we make the next form in 200 years or less. But remember diesel, its not "humans" making AI. Its the universe, through proteins, making "AI". The mechanism (the process) of evolution uses proteins to make the life forms.
There is no way around that base claim ...oh wait, there is ... shun, ban it, stop all those that carry it.
I think it is important to make the distinction between a human making AI and the universe. One way for humans to gain knowledge is through trial and error. When you say evolution uses proteins, it almost sounds like evolution is alive or the thing that uses evolution is alive.
Then I thought about the use of the word evolution. Do we only use it for life forms? Can only life forms evolve? A human cannot revert back to earlier forms but non-living things can revert back, which I think are called cycles.
I think it is important to make the distinction between a human making AI and the universe. One way for humans to gain knowledge is through trial and error. When you say evolution uses proteins, it almost sounds like evolution is alive or the thing that uses evolution is alive.
Then I thought about the use of the word evolution. Do we only use it for life forms? Can only life forms evolve? A human cannot revert back to earlier forms but non-living things can revert back, which I think are called cycles.
I wish I could separate humans from the universe. Not whole universe, just the part we are in. I think the important distinction is stating we are this part of the universe doing what this part of the universe does. Whatever we are, this part of the universe is more of.
I do not mean "evolution is alive" The word "evolution" is applied to many things. Living and non living. Its changes over time. For life on earth its a process of little pieces of the universe interacting in such a way that it is forming more complex structures.
My claim is that we are part of a living system. Actually my claim is that however we classify "humans", in terms of living and/or non-living, that classification matches this part of the universe also. Its just that most people don't understand how we can look at a human as say "its aliveness is really an illusion". The size is the real question at this point. That "alive" predicts "evolution" better than random (as most used the use) and "A deity did it". In fact, it matches it so good that somebody that "lacks belief" needs to explain why using evidence.
And the fact that I am not allowed to give my evidence while at the same time people demand evidence should be an indicator to you. They know many people will see the logic. They feel that doesn't get them anywhere.
I wish I could separate humans from the universe. Not whole universe, just the part we are in. I think the important distinction is stating we are this part of the universe doing what this part of the universe does. Whatever we are, this part of the universe is more of.
I do not mean "evolution is alive" The word "evolution" is applied to many things. Living and non living. Its changes over time. For life on earth its a process of little pieces of the universe interacting in such a way that it is forming more complex structures.
My claim is that we are part of a living system. Actually my claim is that however we classify "humans", in terms of living and/or non-living, that classification matches this part of the universe also. Its just that most people don't understand how we can look at a human as say "its aliveness is really an illusion". The size is the real question at this point. That "alive" predicts "evolution" better than random (as most used the use) and "A deity did it". In fact, it matches it so good that somebody that "lacks belief" needs to explain why using evidence.
And the fact that I am not allowed to give my evidence while at the same time people demand evidence should be an indicator to you. They know many people will see the logic. They feel that doesn't get them anywhere.
I wish I could separate humans from the universe. Not whole universe, just the part we are in. I think the important distinction is stating we are this part of the universe doing what this part of the universe does. Whatever we are, this part of the universe is more of.
I do not mean "evolution is alive" The word "evolution" is applied to many things. Living and non living. Its changes over time. For life on earth its a process of little pieces of the universe interacting in such a way that it is forming more complex structures.
My claim is that we are part of a living system. Actually my claim is that however we classify "humans", in terms of living and/or non-living, that classification matches this part of the universe also. Its just that most people don't understand how we can look at a human as say "its aliveness is really an illusion". The size is the real question at this point. That "alive" predicts "evolution" better than random (as most used the use) and "A deity did it". In fact, it matches it so good that somebody that "lacks belief" needs to explain why using evidence.
And the fact that I am not allowed to give my evidence while at the same time people demand evidence should be an indicator to you. They know many people will see the logic. They feel that doesn't get them anywhere.
The myriad and unsavory concepts of God have polluted the waters and made the very notion of God unpalatable if not actually heinous to very rational minds. That is not to say God believers are irrational minds, they are just not relying on rationality. We can experience God, unconsciously or consciously, because we reside within His consciousness. It is likely that "bleed over" from our immersion constitutes the basis for even the irrational beliefs in God.
The myriad and unsavory concepts of God have polluted the waters and made the very notion of God unpalatable if not actually heinous to very rational minds. That is not to say God believers are irrational minds, they are just not relying on rationality. We can experience God, unconsciously or consciously, because we reside within His consciousness. It is likely that "bleed over" from our immersion constitutes the basis for even the irrational beliefs in God.
It because they are lying when they say here just to talk about religion and spirituality.
Remember trans used to say all the time "I am here to stop religion." and he used to say all the time how he was a rpoud militant anti-theist.". Then we start calling him on it. wow did he change his tune fast.
Trans knows the more he openly talks about his position, and explains what he is really doing, he loose the regular person. If he covers his tracks he knows the people in recovery, the abused, and the scarred will follow him because they will not look to deep into what he is saying. after all, they have a pound of flesh to extract.
It because they are lying when they say here just to talk about religion and spirituality.
Remember trans used to say all the time "I am here to stop religion." and he used to say all the time how he was a rpoud militant anti-theist.". Then we start calling him on it. wow did he change his tune fast.
Trans knows the more he openly talks about his position, and explains what he is really doing, he loose the regular person. If he covers his tracks he knows the people in recovery, the abused, and the scarred will follow him because they will not look to deep into what he is saying. after all, they have a pound of flesh to extract.
If a person already labeled themselves, how does somebody call them out on it?
If a person already labeled themselves, how does somebody call them out on it?
That's a very good question, Elyn.
It's interesting to see how certain posters simply think they can declare themselves "winners" in a discussion, or declare others in a discussion "losers"...as if they speak for the rest of the people in the forum. Even in some cases where no one is agreeing with them, they'll do that. Psychologically, what's interesting about it is not that they think their belief is correct (especially in terms of religion)...I kind of expect that. But that they so misread what how other people are reacting to the discussion.
It's interesting to see how certain posters simply think they can declare themselves "winners" in a discussion, or declare others in a discussion "losers"...as if they speak for the rest of the people in the forum. Even in some cases where no one is agreeing with them, they'll do that. Psychologically, what's interesting about it is not that they think their belief is correct (especially in terms of religion)...I kind of expect that. But that they so misread what how other people are reacting to the discussion.
Another great example: Any discussions on the reliability of what people are saying is based you if you think they are over confident or not. basically how they say it means everything to you.
You have stated many times that since somebody said something with confidence that you won't take anything they say seriously.
Explain that type of thinking Phet. What the person said has absolutely no bearing on how you evaluate.
I think the problems here are these labels can be misrepresented, and the pretense that a persons arguments are defined by that label. I can be against religious fundamentalism and still make rational arguments. The two are independent despite the dishonest claims of some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
It's interesting to see how certain posters simply think they can declare themselves "winners" in a discussion, or declare others in a discussion "losers"...as if they speak for the rest of the people in the forum. Even in some cases where no one is agreeing with them, they'll do that. Psychologically, what's interesting about it is not that they think their belief is correct (especially in terms of religion)...I kind of expect that. But that they so misread what how other people are reacting to the discussion.
I think the problems here are these labels can be misrepresented, and the pretense that a persons arguments are defined by that label. I can be against religious fundamentalism and still make rational arguments. The two are independent despite the dishonest claims of some people.
Hopefully, I am not guilty of this.
It is something we all have a tendency to do when we are certain (for whatever reasons) of what we espouse, Harry. It is a very human trait. Not to worry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
