# Kirk Cameron schools Stephen Hawking in science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 22, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818 "2011-05-22T21:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/161 "2011-05-23T17:17:10Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Kind of tangential to the pitting, but I wonder if someone could demonstrate that something will \*always \*be untestable. > > Consciousness blows my mind, and it’s the only evidence I can give that there is, maybe not God, but something beyond what science can ever explain. Consciousness _has_ been explained though. That’s the problem. We’re essentially a really complex computer program run by electrical impulses. Every time there’s something that “science can never explain” it’s explained later. I’m seeing a pattern here… > [@](#): > > We are more than software running in a meat computer. Not proof of God, but it demonstrates something that makes more sense than a dick-covered nipple, or whatever it was. It’s usually an invisible unicorn, or that teapot orbiting the sun. If science hard-liners deny anything that there’s no solid evidence for, consciousness would have to be denied. …Except, no? You’re factually wrong and no amount of sophistry will take that out of you. > [@classyladyhp](#): > > Oh and if there is a hell. You’ve got a seat reserved:D Wait a second. You WANT this person to suffer _eternal_ torture? You sadistic bitch! Man, I reprimanded him for saying we’d all be better off if you were dead, but _fuck_, that’s really something else. You’re insane! Look, I’ll tell you what. Spend 3 days straight getting waterboarded, _then_ make this claim again. Torture is no laughing matter, and you want to subject him to an _eternity_ of it? You sadistic, evil bitch! Do you have _any idea_ how cruel that makes you sound? Most people crack after a few hours, but you want him to suffer _eternally_… Do you even understand what you’re _saying_? > [@classyladyhp](#): > > To demonstrate that there are some things that we do not yet understand. …:smack: The stupid. It burns. Look, just because we _don’t_ understand something, doesn’t mean we _won’t_. Like, say, how our species diversified. We used to not know how that happened, so we made up a fairy tale about it and everyone believed it. Then someone _found the answer_. Your argument, the “god of the gaps” argument, is so ridiculously flawed, it’s not even funny. There’s only one argument I know that’s more fallacious, and it has to do with Hitler’s religious beliefs. Oh yeah. I did this for _you_, by the way. > **[Morons and god: dissecting 20 "arguments" for god and any argument for any...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=609606)** > > http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20\_arguments-gods-existence.htm So classylady posted this in the thread with the obscenely stupid title (The day Kirk Cameron out-sciences Stephen Hawking is the day that Rick Santorum stops being a bigoted... Yes, it hurt to do. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/162 "2011-05-23T17:17:54Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You can’t copywrite anything. There’s copy writing and writing copy, but neither of them have anything to do with having the exclusive right to publish a text. You would need to file for a copyright, although technically you own a copyright to any image or text you have created even if the copyright isn’t registered. I’m not even sure you can file a copyright for a single phrase or sentence; most likely the copyright office would tell you to trademark it. > > Sorry. It’s just seems that more and more people are making this mistake these days, and for some reason it’s really beginning to bug me. I like that post so much that I think I’ll steal it… What? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/163 "2011-05-23T17:53:51Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Consciousness _has_ been explained though. That’s the problem. We’re essentially a really complex computer program run by electrical impulses. Every time there’s something that “science can never explain” it’s explained later. I’m seeing a pattern here… > > …Except, no? You’re factually wrong and no amount of sophistry will take that out of you. But computers are not conscious. That’s an importance difference between a human and a computer. I thought my statement that we are not simply meat computers implied that. I guess not. Or do you think computers are conscious? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/164 "2011-05-23T18:04:38Z")
> [@bup](#): > > But computers are not conscious. That’s an importance difference between a human and a computer. I thought my statement that we are not simply meat computers implied that. I guess not. > > Or do you think computers are conscious? Our brains are orders of magnitude more complex that the most powerful computers on Earth. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/165 "2011-05-23T18:12:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Our brains are orders of magnitude more complex that the most powerful computers on Earth. How do you measure that? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/166 "2011-05-23T18:19:10Z")
> [@bup](#): > > How do you measure that? For a good exploration of this topic, I recommend the first few chapters of this book: > **[Why Choose This Book?: How We Make Decisions: Montague, Read: 9780525949824:...](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Choose-This-Book-Decisions/dp/0525949828)** > > Buy Why Choose This Book?: How We Make Decisions on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders Of course, the rest of the book is really good, too. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/167 "2011-05-23T18:20:44Z")
> [@bup](#): > > How do you measure that? By the number of neural connections? [ > [@](#): > > An extremely powerful computer would be required for a brain simulation. The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 x 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion).[35] An estimate of the brain’s processing power, based on a simple switch model for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) neuron updates per second.[36] Kurzweil looks at various estimates for the hardware required to equal the human brain and adopts a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps).[37] He uses this figure to predict the necessary hardware[38] will be available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the current exponential growth in computer power continues. ]([Strong AI - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI)[/url) ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/168 "2011-05-23T18:25:57Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > For a good exploration of this topic, I recommend the first few chapters of this book: > > [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/Why-Choose-This-Book-Decisions/dp/0525949828) > > Of course, the rest of the book is really good, too. OK, I just wish-listed the book. It sounds interesting. So, to read between the lines, your answer is that a computer could be conscious if it were orders of magnitude more powerful? Is that the difference between a human having consciousness and a computer not? Or do you think computers are conscious, or humans not? Or what? **Lobohan** , your wiki-link has garbage in it - [here’s the page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI). AI still recognizes that the computer is imitating intelligence, without having self-awareness, though. Or do you think a neural-net computer could be described as conscious? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/169 "2011-05-23T18:35:43Z")
> [@bup](#): > > OK, I just wish-listed the book. It sounds interesting. > > So, to read between the lines, your answer is that a computer could be conscious if it were orders of magnitude more powerful? Is that the difference between a human having consciousness and a computer not? Or do you think computers are conscious, or humans not? Or what? > > **Lobohan** , your wiki-link has garbage in it - [here’s the page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI). AI still recognizes that the computer is imitating intelligence, without having self-awareness, though. Or do you think a neural-net computer could be described as conscious? Sorry about the link, I didn’t double check it. I don’t think we’d know if it were conscious or not. But that said, I don’t actually know that you’re conscious. In any case, since our brains are subject to damage and chemical interference it highly suggests that our consciousness is mechanical in nature. To put it more clearly, if you had a soul, getting shot in the head and surviving shouldn’t damage your actual thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/170 "2011-05-23T18:36:15Z")
> [@bup](#): > > OK, I just wish-listed the book. It sounds interesting. > > So, to read between the lines, your answer is that a computer could be conscious if it were orders of magnitude more powerful? Is that the difference between a human having consciousness and a computer not? Or do you think computers are conscious, or humans not? Or what? I’m not sure if the question is really aimed at me - I haven’t been participating in this thread, but I’ll give my basic thoughts anyway. A lot of what the author talks about is our brain’s ability to place value on decision outcomes - that is to determine, before the calculation is made, how valuable the answer will be and put an appropriate amount of resources towards the question. So, we change the acceptable margin of error of our questions reflexively through heurisitcs. Our ‘programming’ is a result of our evolution and our chemical and electrical systems are built ina way that give us desires such as procreating and surviving. We have biological feedback mechanisms that make us ‘desire’ those things (pain, pelasure). Computers don’t have these. They don’t have desires and they don’t have much in the way of assigning importance to different tasks. I see these as inter-related - if you don’t know what your goals are, you’re not very good at prioritizing. Our goals are clear - live, reproduce. The author makes a good argument that the efficiency of our brains as computers is related to our ability to assign values and priorities to computational tasks - of course, there’s a ton of other stuff going on that’s way beyond my ability to throughly grasp, let alone restate intelligently. Could computers become conscious at some point? I guess anything’s possible, but I’m not betting on it happening anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/171 "2011-05-23T18:37:48Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > Good luck with that. When it comes to defending the idiotic religious right, **Scylla** is as receptive to “schooling” as a Klansman is to Affirmative Action. No argument is to stoopid or incomprehensible when defending GOP/Godbotherer/Anti-Librul “values.” > > My favorite **Scylla** argument: > > Remember a few years back when Bush groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel, totally creeping her out? Well, according to **Scylla** , that was a brilliant geopolitcal move demonstrating America’s dominance over the European Union… or some shit. > > He’s a fucking idiot. Where the fuck did that come from? You’ve been saving that up for what? 9 years? Seriously, if you let some anonymous guy on the Internet put a bug in your ass for a decade, you need to get a life and reassess your priorities. Let it fucking go. You’re creeping me out. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/172 "2011-05-23T18:43:32Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Where the fuck did that come from? You’ve been saving that up for what? 9 years? > Seriously, if you let some anonymous guy on the Internet put a bug in your ass for a decade, you need to get a life and reassess your priorities. > > Let it fucking go. You’re creeping me out. To be fair, you’ve been posting like an idiot, and he just wanted to show a newcomer (me) just how deep that rabbit hole goes. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/173 "2011-05-23T18:48:31Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Where the fuck did that come from? You’ve been saving that up for what? 9 years? > Seriously, if you let some anonymous guy on the Internet put a bug in your ass for a decade, you need to get a life and reassess your priorities. > > Let it fucking go. You’re creeping me out. Maybe you should run barefoot into the woods and go waterboard yourself? [/scylla\_creepout\_intensifier] ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/174 "2011-05-23T19:14:19Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > When I see all the glories of the cosmos, I can’t help but believe that there is a divine hand behind it all. Albert Einstein > > My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God. Albert Einstein “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” Albert Einstein ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/175 "2011-05-23T19:21:05Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I like that post so much that I think I’ll steal it… Instead of stealing from each other, perhaps you and **Polecat** could trade market. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/176 "2011-05-23T19:51:44Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > To be fair, you’ve been posting like an idiot, and he just wanted to show a newcomer (me) just how deep that rabbit hole goes. Sorry you feel that way. I won’t force you to waste your time on an idiot by responding to your earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![Morgyn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morgyn/32/3041_2.png) [@Morgyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgyn)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/177 "2011-05-23T20:05:24Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > To be fair, you’ve been posting like an idiot, and he just wanted to show a newcomer (me) just how deep that rabbit hole goes. To also be fair, while I’ve never found myself agreeing with Scylla on politics, he’s generally a pretty stand-up guy, and he tells a hell of a story. Look for “The Terror of Blimps” for a prime, prime example. [I also don’t agree with him on religion, since I’m either agnostic or atheist, depending on the wind’s direction. The rest stands.] ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/178 "2011-05-23T20:16:12Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > 😕 > > I thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a chick… HERETIC! Stone him! (The notion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is female is only held by a handful of renegades known as the She’ites.) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/179 "2011-05-23T20:17:38Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > HERETIC! Stone him! > > (The notion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is female is only held by a handful of renegades known as the She’ites.) I don’t understand the _She’ite heresy_ personally. I mean his meatballs are right there in plain sight. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/180 "2011-05-23T20:27:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Do you truly believe that making up an answer for which there is no evidence at all is better than saying “I don’t know yet.”?? Good question. I think it generally is and, as far as i can tell that seems to be the standard nodus operandi of scientific inquiry. For example, in statistics fudge factors like beta and discount rate are used to name things that aren’t definable so we can get closer to defining them. Their existence allows us to define other things more precisely, and let’s us perform useful operations. As long as you are doing it this way, it’s cool. So, if we are saying “God created the universe because we can’t explain it any other way and that’s that and don’t question it,” than that’s not what I’m talking about and no, that’s not good. If we saying the Big Bang event’s cause is godlike in that it is vastly powerful, ancient, all encompassing, debatably knowable, and created the universe and so therefore we might as well call it God, than I would say that is good and every bit as useful as beta, discount rate, dark matter, the bodily humous, the wether, and the g-spot. Place holders, fudge factors, bad theories, are good and useful because they help you define what you don’t know, and they help you start to know it by identifying and cataloguing it’s characteristics. Saying you don’t know and shrugging your shoulders is comparatively useless. Where you get in trouble is when your place holder or fudge factor is no longer subject to modification or revision but simply accepted as fact. Invisible pink unicorns are useful. When you posit them they start showing you what the answers will look like. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=10)