[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
By your statements, the entire process is useless so it doesn’t matter how remarkable the rate is.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s not useless but I think it’s usefulness has a limit.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Why not ?
[/QUOTE]
Argument from pervasive ignorance is not very compelling.
And heck, I can explain human consciousness: you’re a computer program running on your brain. (Which, I suppose, would technically make it a brain program.) Congratulations, you have been explained.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Argument from pervasive ignorance is not very compelling.
And heck, I can explain human consciousness: you’re a computer program running on your brain. (Which, I suppose, would technically make it a brain program.) Congratulations, you have been explained.
[/QUOTE]
There we have it. An explanation that isn’t an explanation at all. Just something to hang your hat on for a bit.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
There we have it. An explanation that isn’t an explanation at all. Just something to hang your hat on for a bit.
[/QUOTE]
If that’s not an explanation, then what on earth is? Does anything qualify? Good grief.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
If that’s not an explanation, then what on earth is? Does anything qualify? Good grief.
[/QUOTE]
I think an explanation of human consciousness requires more than a sentence and a comparison to artificial intelligence. Computers don’t know how to love man.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I think an explanation of human consciousness requires more than a sentence and a comparison to artificial intelligence. Computers don’t know how to love man.
[/QUOTE]
That would be your opinion, to both sentences. I suppose you don’t think a description of lightning as “static electricity from clouds rubbing together” is a good explanation either, do you?
I’ll give you a clue: you can indeed stand here all day and refuse to accept anything anyone else says, doing nothing but repeating yourself. But this will impress exactly nobody.
(And I’m done for the evening; g’night, all.)
[QUOTE=begbert2]
That would be your opinion, to both sentences. I suppose you don’t think a description of lightning as “static electricity from clouds rubbing together” is a good explanation either, do you?
I’ll give you a clue: you can indeed stand here all day and refuse to accept anything anyone else says, doing nothing but repeating yourself. But this will impress exactly nobody.
(And I’m done for the evening; g’night, all.)
[/QUOTE]
I’m not here to impress, just occupying time with thought. I also accept a good deal of what has been said.
And your explanation of lightning is lacking too.
[QUOTE=Yumblie]
This just sounds like a semantics argument now. You might as well ask what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object. The situation is only a paradox because of how you define your terms. If something moves an unmovable object, well then, it was obviously mislabeled and will now be referred to as a movable object.
[/QUOTE]
I never understood why this is a paradox. We have an unmovable object. It can’t move. We have an unstoppable force, it can’t be stopped. So if they meet, obviously, the unstoppable force will go through the unmovable object and continue on, unimpeded. All definitions are kept. Right? I’ve posted this before but no one ever gives me a treat. I’m not crazy am I?
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
I never understood why this is a paradox. We have an unmovable object. It can’t move. We have an unstoppable force, it can’t be stopped. So if they meet, obviously, the unstoppable force will go through the unmovable object and continue on, unimpeded. All definitions are kept. Right? I’ve posted this before but no one ever gives me a treat. I’m not crazy am I?
[/QUOTE]
Dude…that would tear a hole in the universe…pfft…don’t you know anything about message board pretend science ?
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
No, it’s not useless but I think it’s usefulness has a limit.
[/QUOTE]
And your well-reasoned argument for the existence of a limit and where it lies would be…?
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
And your well-reasoned argument for the existence of a limit and where it lies would be…?
[/QUOTE]
There are two distinct possibilities:
The evolution of intelligence has surpassed Darwinian evolution. The information in our DNA can not catch up with the information we have accumulated through intelligent evolution. We will not survive to see Darwinian evolution catch up to our intelligence evolution. The limit is imposed by this failure. While we have great intelligence and have stored away great knowledge, we still posess instinctive impulses for agression that linger from the days of prehistoric men. The drive to subjugate and kill other humans and take their resources was a definite survival advantage up to a point. Now, however, it can destroy the entire human race. Nuclear and biological warfare, made possible by our intellectual evolution but none the less subject to our biological and naturally evolved impulses to use violence as a means to an end. The limit.
The second possibility is self designed evolution. We already conceive of modifying DNA to improve intelligence at a genetic level. We will eventually map human DNA and identify it’s relation to the human condition. First, disease and birth defects will be targeted. A dangerous propostion. We would be better suited to identify the genetics of intelligence first so that we would better understand the consequences of engineering health, such as over population, starvation, increased aggression due to poverty and discontent. If we do survive the initial implementation of self designed evolution, we will then move on to self evolving intelligence factors. The spawns of self designed evolution will in essence be “mega humans”. Smarter, stronger, with greater longevity. This will be a great source of conflict between the designed humans and the naturally evolved humans. However, the self designed will continue to modify and improve their race at an even faster clip until self destruction is eminent. The only option at that point is other planets. Travel to the center of the galaxy is about 100,000 years away. Too far for even the strongest, most perfect specimens of humans. The final option will be to preserve the evolution of intelligence in machines and send them. Thus, the end of the human race. The limit.
To shorten the last post, we will obliterate the human race, our knowledge going with us, along the road to explaining everything. Our brains are not suited to know everything. Once we get close enough, we contruct our own demise. We’re pretty close I think.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Liar. Absolute lie.
I have not assigned a definition to any word. I have cited the definitons of Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, American Heritage, Ultralingua and a couple I forgot. Take up your arguments with them.
You liar. I don’t get to assign definitions and I have not attempted to do so. Many, many others have attempted to redefine the word and assign a meaning they can accept. Not me. Liar.
[/QUOTE]
While “you are lying” is grudgingly tolerated, here, and “you are a liar” is even more grudgingly accepted as about the only personal insult permitted in this Forum, based on its frequent use as the casual manner of expressing “you are lying,” it would still be well to use such terms in moderation. Ratcheting up the hostility and name-calling generally indicates that one cannot defend one’s position.
Calm down.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Ah, evoltuion of intelligence. Remarkably slow phenomenon right up until the last 300 years. The rate has moved remarkably, right up to the point that we’re having a discussion of the possibilty of the finite or infinite nature of our conscious understanding.
[/QUOTE]
I’d be curious as to the basis of this remarkably silly claim. What has led you to believe that the growth(? development? increase? what?) of human intelligence was ever a slow phenomenon or that its rate hgas increased in the last 300 years?
Are you, perhaps, confusing intelligence with knowledge? Or do you truly believe that intelligence, itself, is “evolving” in an accelerating manner?
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
To shorten the last post, we will obliterate the human race, our knowledge going with us, along the road to explaining everything. Our brains are not suited to know everything. Once we get close enough, we contruct our own demise. We’re pretty close I think.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve got this one.
Cite?
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I contend . That’s the word. It’s not an absolute statement but an argument for the truth.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, when I contend that everything is ultimately explainable, you demand proof.
Why the double standard? Why are your contentions not bound by the same constrictions as mine?
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
I never understood why this is a paradox. We have an unmovable object. It can’t move. We have an unstoppable force, it can’t be stopped. So if they meet, obviously, the unstoppable force will go through the unmovable object and continue on, unimpeded. All definitions are kept. Right? I’ve posted this before but no one ever gives me a treat. I’m not crazy am I?
[/QUOTE]
It’s a question of definitions, actually.
In as:
a.) an unmovable object is an object that cannot be budged from its position
b.) an unstoppable force is a force that will move any object it encounters
Your definition (as I understand it)
a.) an unmovable object is an object that cannot be budged from its position
b.) an unstoppable force is a force that will continue “moving” regardless of anything it encounters
So, in the first definition (mine) both objects are contradictory in nature. In your definition (mine) both concepts can coexist in the same universe.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
While “you are lying” is grudgingly tolerated, here, and “you are a liar” is even more grudgingly accepted as about the only personal insult permitted in this Forum, based on its frequent use as the casual manner of expressing “you are lying,” it would still be well to use such terms in moderation. Ratcheting up the hostility and name-calling generally indicates that one cannot defend one’s position.
Calm down.
[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]
Yes sir. The lie was corrected. Please consider the insult rescinded.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Iknewit, way back in post #11, I said, to wit:Perhaps you overlooked this post. Would you care to reply in a civil manner? If so, I would be glad to respond, also in a civil manner. Otherwise, I fear this thread is destined for oblivion or worse.
[/QUOTE]
I know you weren’t asking me, but I still would like your opinion on this:
Is anything that can be investigated likely to be labeled paranormal?
I can bring up one example which even though observed, would still be called paranormal (at least at first). Suppose that someone, anyone, achieved a perfect map of Nostradamus’s predictions. By that I mean of course an investigation that would correlate 1 to 1 a certain number of couplets, with an unambiguous key to future events, before they happen. A work of this nature would perfectly document a “paranormal” event and yet would offer no explanation as to how the original work was produced. My guess is that it would still be “paranormal”
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I’d be curious as to the basis of this remarkably silly claim. What has led you to believe that the growth(? development? increase? what?) of human intelligence was ever a slow phenomenon or that its rate hgas increased in the last 300 years?
Are you, perhaps, confusing intelligence with knowledge? Or do you truly believe that intelligence, itself, is “evolving” in an accelerating manner?
[/QUOTE]
One of the greatest leaps in intelligence came about with the ability to actually write and store information outside of the human brain. Beforehand, the limitations of recall and short term memory prevented certain pieces of information from being preserved for later use in logical deduction. Things could be learned and forgotten, skipping over many opportunities for logical anaylisis in a life span, not to mention over generations. The printing press was a giant innovation that moved forward the ability to not only record information but reprint it for examination by the many humans. This coupled with the spread of the knowledge to read, write and translate from one language to another fueled the evolution of intelligence, contributed the greatest gains in human intelligence. The ability to reason, plan, solve problems and think abstractly is no longer limited to the information stored in the brain but now has a wealth of information stored in language that can be recalled precisely, transfered from a book to short term memory, without the need for actual experience to gather the information.