Jump to content

2501

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 2501

  • Birthday October 29

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sea of Information
  • Interests
    Transhumanism, Chess, Fitness
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Game Theory, Computer Science, Math, Sports Science
  • Occupation
    Tech Support, Student

2501's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

2

Reputation

  1. Yeah, you gotta shorten your posts even more and get to the point. I don't even have time to read any of this, particularly if there are no citations or even links. In any event, a quick perusal suggests that it is written in a way that does not even give us anything to really discuss or debate. Are you directing this for us to discuss, or are you just here to preach your idea of the meaning of life?
  2. I actually made it through the whole thing! Does that mean I win anything?
  3. 2501

    Rubik's Cube

    Was wondering if there was anybody on this site who enjoys playing around with a Rubik's Cube? I myself have the Rubik's Cube, the Mini Cube, Rubik's Revenge, the Professor's Cube, and the Megaminx, and am able to solve all of them fairly quickly (I may post a video on Youtube on how to solve the regular Rubik's Cube and the Megaminx sometime in the future). I'm also looking into attempting the Teraminx, as it seems like it will be a good challenge. I'm also looking into making a go at this crazy thing too: http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm
  4. Well, first off, the guy you are debating is commiting a fallacy known as a red herring i.e. he is trying to argue about the chances of abiogenesis occuring, which does not have any real bearing on the validity of natural selection as a mechanism (or for that matter, has very little to do with evolution in general). What he's trying to do is argue about the chances of abiogenesis occuring (or rather, the chances that a group of molecules will spontaneously generate a living organism), and thus distracting you (or the audience) from the subject of natural selection and evolution more generally. In short, abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Secondly, even if the subject of abiogensis was being talked about, its clear that this guy does not have a clue about abiogenesis and protein formation anyway. If you really want to go the full mile take and that crutch away from this person, you can direct him (or her) to TalkOrigins, which has a short article about the actual science of abiogenesis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html If you want something more recent, you can also direct him to the work of Jack Szostak, who I think actually won the Nobel Prize recently for his work on abiogenesis (in particular protocell formation). A link to his work is here: http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/ In a nutshell, no one is arguing that a large group of atoms will spontaneously generate a living cell. There is an entire process that creationists seem to gloss over when going from a collection of inanimate atoms or molecules to the emergence of self-replicating molecules, and then further down the line, life itself. All of which is explained in the link provided. What your opponent just provided was just a standard, and probably scripted, response to your arguments over natural selection. A rather standard tactic BTW, and one that you should be prepared for if you plan on debating more creationists in the future. The sooner you know the typical responses, the easier it will be to quickly and successfully counter them. Third, are you debating this guy online? If so, then also be aware of the Backfire Effect, which is the tendency for people to stick more strongly to their original beliefs when presented with contrary evidence. The only way to counter this effect is to immediately call them out on it when it occurs. Try not to be dismissive or resort to name calling, as that only guarantees that you trigger it more strongly. A debate is as much a psychological battle as it is a battle of facts, so you want to also aim at breaking his/her will to fight, as well as convince them the fallacy of their beliefs.
  5. And Mathematics! Don't forget math, it is the foundation to all science and engineering .
  6. I think MathWorld provides a simple explanation of Polynomial Time: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolynomialTime.html Basically, it's just a statement about the ability of a particular algorithm of any complexity to solve a problem in a given amount of time. There are instances of a problem being too hard or taking too much time to solve; depending on the application it could be a good thing (for example, cryptography) or a bad thing.
  7. I'm sorry if I missed your earlier posts on this subject, MigL, it was my honest mistake. I'll have you know, however, there are better ways of getting your point across other than screaming. Quite frankly, I only bothered to give my two cents in this thread because I thought there was potential to discuss the psychology and/or science behind it, and to learn a thing or two about the different approaches. Otherwise I'll let you carry on...
  8. There are several ways of increasing your memory, but perhaps the most efficient way to improve your memory is the use of mnemonic techniques or the Method of Loci. The Method of Loci in particular capitalizes on our already extensive visual-spatial memory system built into our brains. You can take a look at this short list here for various mnemonic techniques: http://www.learningassistance.com/2006/january/mnemonics.html The Method of Loci on the otherhand is a much more advanced technique, and requires more practice. You may be interested in watching this video for a short primer on how to do it: The thing to understand that memory is very much like a muscle; as long as you practice using it and stretching it just beyond its limits, you should be able to improve your memory over time.
  9. I don't think there is anyway to quantify it. But given that revenge tends to be codified in the creeds of whole religions (e.g. Islam, Bushido, etc.) I'm going to guess that it is prevalent to the point that it is probably in our nature to be vengeful. Revenge is probably an evolutionary artifact of our large brains and quite possibly the dark side of our ability to reflect upon things (including being able to remember our particular emotional state at the time that we were wronged).
  10. I think what PeterJ meant to say was that that science has superseded philosophy in almost all respects, and is therefore unable to come up with a credible answer to how philosophy has any relevance in this day and age
  11. I would say the first time I stepped into college I began to realize just how little I actually knew about anything. And not just about the subjects I was studying, but also how little I knew about myself. Right now, I'm not sure which is more gloomy, the fact that I know little about anything, or the fact that I will probably never know much more beyond a specific subfield or specialization that, for some reason, I happen to acquire knowledge in or just really like a lot. At this stage I suppose I've come to the realization that it is better to know alot about one thing, and a little about everything else.
  12. I disagree; free will as is generally understood certainly has properties that can be tested, and so far the science has shown that we don't indeed have much conscious control over our actions. You may be interested in this short article that sums up the scientific evidence against the existence of free will; LINK: http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will You may also be interested in watching this video by Sam Harris, who provides a convincing argument against it (and the corresponding science that supports his assertions): On a more general scale however, the fact that everything is governed by the laws of physics (and higher up on the scale, in biology, all behavior can be reduced to whatever is encoded in genes) would implicitly imply that free will doesn't exist, since all behavior can be ultimately reduced to a set of physical interactions and phenomena within the brain, of which can be described rationally.
  13. I would say that this problem has largely been solved actually i.e. we most likely do not have any free will, at least in the classical understanding of the term. It is notable that this problem was solved by science rather than philosophy though. It is more like everyone is in denial rather than there being an actual debate over the topic...
  14. You may also want to look into contributing to any open source projects you find on the net, particularly applications or programs for Linux/Unix. Open source projects have the added advantage of allowing you to actually study source code and get a feel for what it is like to write different applications (as well as a good source for learning how to identify errors and bugs), and thus get much needed practice that way.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.