Intoscience

I prefer a white board over a black one. I can use multiple coloured pens on a whiteboard and you don't get that awful screeching noise whilst writing on one.

I think its an inevitable part of human evolution. The sensible and most likely approach would be slow integration. A.I should be an asset rather than a threat, both economically and socially. We have witnessed in our life times changes through technology, the introduction of the internet being one major example. then you can look at robots in manufacturing and other industries. The goal should be to free the world of poverty, reduce sickness and improve wellbeing for all. Reality, most likely, someone (maybe even A.I) will just get stinking rich/powerful and the poor will continue to be poor. I would support the following as priority Basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter Reduction in diseases and ill health Utilities such as electricity, water, internet, etc All levels of education (as much as a person wants to learn

This is where things get muddled Rather than attempting to find a fair solution, by fair I'm referring to a solution which accommodates all, allowing an equal opportunity. Some subsets get shoe horned into categories which then in turn discriminates against others within that category. This is why the Para athletic events works, people at a physical disadvantage are pitted against each other rather than against people who do not share the same disadvantages. But the attitude is shoe horn the small subset into a category that they are then going on to dominate and everyone else (the vast majority) should suck it up. This is damaging to all parties involved, all it does is promote further un-acceptance and separative attitudes, rather than encourage equality and acceptance. I for one would much rather see subset categories to allow people of similar calibre to compete against each other than watch one group dominate all. The attitude that its about the taking part that counts not the winning, well that's a cop out. What is the point of "competition" if there is no goal to aim for? Competition is healthy, in most it promotes progress. We as humans have the advantage that we have the intelligence to subset competition to make it an equal playing field so all can participate, all have the chance of being winners. But don't you see that the persecution is encouraged more so from allowing the "small subset" a clear advantage over their fellow competitors? Don't you think that these people feel less valued when they are singled out for all the wrong reasons? I want to encourage people to be able to be who they want to be without the fear of persecution. Anyhow, this thread is going off track now, so I'll leave it at that.

Transgender, especially in women's athletics, as one example though. There is another thread on that topic already heavily debated. Anything taken to extremes, either way, is going to present issues, no matter what subject we discuss. Would you not agree that in general solving issues tends to come from the middle grounds, where things can be more easily balanced?

Glad to hear you are still around, I for one found the vast majority of your arguments sound and logical. And if I ever had a disagreement at any point (can't think of any but I'm sure I probably did) I still respect you. Also the fact that you had been missed already is testament to the value you hold as a member of this forum! Keep posting, the forum needs you

What gives you this impression? Science (or at least some areas of it) can be considered underfunded compared to other organisations/fields of study, yet the benefits from scientific discoveries can be immense. Scientists don't get paid that well unless happen to find stardom through popular exposure such as TV etc... who are a tiny portion of the scientific community. If your discovery is so sensational then why not publish a paper for peer review, then maybe if verified you can make millions of bucks for your own ideas, what is stopping you?

I sense an extreme amount of bitterness and "contempt" towards the scientific community. Science uses models that can be tested and independently verified as it's standard. Until a better model is discovered and verified, yielding more accurate predictions to explain observation, then there is no reason to discount the original model. So what you learn in study is those "standard" models. You then are more than encouraged to seek out better models, nobody in the modern scientific community is going to oppose this approach. However any new model will face extreme scrutiny, and why shouldn't it? If it works and holds then this is the verification that is needed for it to then be accepted as the "new" standard model. At which point this will be taught to the next generation of students. This is how progress works, start with solid foundations and build on them. Not all discoveries are sensational, some take years of study, bits at a time. A tip: To enable you to refute an argument, you need to learn as much information as you can. This includes that which you may believe to be intuitively false. But intuition can cloud your judgement, especially when dealing with science, things aren't always the way you imagine they should be. So go and study, gain an understanding of that which you are claiming is false, you never know you may come back with something sensational, or you may learn something. At least you may get a different perspective and gain a little respect for science.

Ok, fair enough, I mis-interpreted the context, apologies Fair enough, Again, my mis-interpretation, I think we have established that this is not what it is about I think, though tongue in cheek, J.C in this instance makes a valid point. This is where we may find the "extreme" side of woke creating more issues than it solves.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are insinuating with your comment? My partner is a black lady, her life matters very much to me, not because of the colour of her skin though. I'm saying all people from all cultures may have inherent racial tendencies learnt from their social environment, both intended and unintended. We can all agree that racism can be eradicated through social education, we can all do better. Prejudice in any form is not the answer. I'm learning to phrase things better, consider my use of terms and language, so that it becomes more acceptable across a more diverse range of cultures and groups. But I still fall foul, and still make mistakes. I still mis-understand or even don't understand why something I say may be offensive, I'm still scrubbing out the stains.

For me it would depend on the situation, I agree I would save my child before my dog. But honestly, I'm not sure I'd save every human over my dog in all situations. It may seem absurd to some, but I don't place human life, in all situations, at the top of the hierarchy. There you go, singling out one group from others. Don't you think all people have racial tendencies dependent on their social upbringing? Just for the record, I'm not a white person living in the USA so I wouldn't be able to comment on that. That's a bold assumption, I'm sure all people interact with racist people each and every day. Though I do agree that a little effort in consideration towards others may go a long way.

+1

Just a side note: My dog is part of my family and loved as any person would love a child. My dog also loves each of his family (us). I would treat my dog better than I would treat some of the greedy, selfish, self-centered, attention seeking people often found in modern society. +1 Though branding a person, racist because they used a term (out of years of habit) without context, that is a little sensitive in modern society, does not make them evil either. A little education in decorum and respect is all it takes, most people (those that do care) will accept this and try to change the terms they use. I find myself most days doing this, I have learned to stop and think what terms I should be using during discussions, but sometimes I still slip up out of habit. I was glad when white boards were introduced and black boards were no longer used! Not because I'm racist, but because the sound of chalk squeaking against the black board I found totally unbearable.

And some of the kindest, though those that are kind tend to be very respectful, and tend not to preach onto others their own beliefs.

Blackholes are evidence that there are regions of space-time where the geometry is such that once past a certain point (the event horizon) there is no escape from within that region. It is not evidence of the existence of physical singularities.

Which is why I said Its too early to say whether there is a dispute over the big bang model. I think one of the issues we have is that relativity predicts a mathematical singularity, but physically a singularity makes no sense. However, at this scale quantum theory takes over from relativity and things get a little muddy - the quantum fluctuation you alluded to. The other thing, and this is where its becomes difficult for us to conceptualise, thinking in terms of "all" and "contain in" assumes a measurable quantity. Measurement at that scale also becomes difficult.

I think part of the problem with trying to conceptualise this, is the issue of trying to imagine "pre" space-time. Even the idea of before makes no sense because this infers a time pre time, which in itself is paradoxical. It could be that space and possibly time had no beginning and that both are infinite. Our idea that the observable universe had a beginning at the "big bang" on relativity and observations gave rise to the notion of - "pre" space-time or what we commonly call the primordial singularity. Though recent observations made by JWT of large distant galaxies may question the accuracy of the big bang model.

Maybe it assumed the possibility that Joan could have been accelerated in a spaceship to a relativistic speed for a period of time only to return younger than her daughter? 😝

Ha, yes I never really give that a thought, well done!

Not mastered... everything with my weaker hand as yet, but working on it 😝

That's a very positive way of living your life but its not really a purpose (unless you make it a personal one). It's more of a code of practice, or method, or goal. As far as I can see, and I mentioned this earlier in the thread, if there is a purpose then it seems that the one purpose is survival, self survival long enough to aid in continuation of your species - reproduction. Why this is so? Who knows, but it makes sense in that, else basically and very simplistically, there would be no point in living in the first place.

Not really a money saving or particularly labour saving, but being right handed I used to operate my PC mouse with my right hand. However at the odd time I needed to multi task I found it a pain. So I learnt to use the mouse with my left hand allowing me to multi task. I soon adjusted and its very useful, it also makes me smile when people who come to use my pc say "I didn't realise you are left handed" When I reply I'm not, they look at me very confused. Anyway as a result I try and use my weaker hand for more things, I enjoy the challenge and it tends to be beneficial.

Sentience: capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling This is an argument for the A.I experts, philosophers & neurologists, of which I'm non. My argument is around A.I developed/evolved/alien that is more intelligent than we are, and out of our control.

The insertion of sentience is around the AGI sensing its environment. To a degree certain AGI maybe be required in such a way to operate at it's most useful, where awareness of it's environment maybe pivotal. Many A.I machines already receive and process sensory information, why not take that a step further?

I share a similar view, which is why I alluded towards the "paperclip maximizer" idea. My point really was about ways in which an advanced A.I could be threatening towards us and in ways that we may not expect or realise, or even imagine. Consciousness was brought into the conversation as a familiar mechanism in which the A.I could essentially "think" like humans. Think about it this way, any intelligence that surpasses our own and has technological capabilities is by definition a potential threat. If we remain in control of this intelligence then we can secure our safety. But if, the intelligence gains independence then well... that's a whole new potential problem.

In my personal experience, I have met and got to know around a dozen or so "self-made millionaires" all bar non share a type of personality that is ruthless, extremely selfish, unsympathetic, greedy, and tight. As pretty much depicted by the character scrooge but hidden behind a cloak showing a face of care and compassion. Obviously not all self made people are of this type, some just happen to be lucky, or have their talent recognised and rewarded.