Genady

One might be out, one or more could be in. "Finland will take a decision about whether to apply to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance in the next few weeks, Prime Minister Sanna Marin said on Wednesday, underlining a shift in security perspectives since Russia's invasion of Ukraine." Finland to make decision on NATO entry in coming weeks, not months | Reuters

This is so, if my understanding of what constitutes a religion is thrown away. What is a defining feature then? How do I know what is and what is not a religion? Can we apply that test to Marxism (because I know about it more than I ever wanted)?

Thanks a lot. Downloaded. I'll study it. Maybe interpolate-extrapolate expresses what I mean by external-internal patterns -- we'll see.

OK. This answers my questions clearly. You don't know arithmetic. And you don't know the meaning of being Newtonian. You don't know. You just talk. Talk and drink, drink and talk. Don't bother to apologize again - this was the second time already - or even reply. I will not talk to you anymore. Ever.

1. What does it have to do with being "practically Newtonian"? 2. "if I don't have two sheep and I take away two sheep, how do I suddenly have four sheep?" -- you don't; why would you think you do? looks like an arithmetic's error to me; do you know arithmetic?

I have a vague "Hypothesis 1" regarding the human intelligence's advantage compared to AI: AI discovers patterns in input data, while we discover patterns in our own thinking. IOW, the brain discovers patterns in its own activities. Patterns in the input data is a small subset of the latter.

In what way "karma is practically Newtonian"?

Is your name Henry M. Morris? Did you write it in 2003? From the OP: "All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion." From The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research (icr.org): "All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion."

Is your name Casey Luskin? Did you write it in 2014? From the OP: "[] the Intelligent design movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth." From A Reader Asks: Can Microevolutionary Changes Add Up to Macroevolutionary Change? | Evolution News: "The ID movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the history of the Earth."

I appreciate what you say. Unfortunately, I cannot verbalize my "gut feeling" about it. Something like a difference between countable and uncountable infinities... It is not only "creativity", not even mostly about it. My doubts are about other human abilities, such as:

Here is an "official" answer: "Many lay people in Russia think of Ukrainian as a mere dialect of Russian, and a substandard one at that. Linguists, on the other hand, treat Ukrainian as a separate language." Pereltsvaig, Asya. Languages of the World (p. 37) Also, "most speakers of Ukrainian have no problem understanding Russian, but the average Russian – who has not been exposed to much Ukrainian – might understand only bits and pieces of their interlocutor’s Ukrainian speech." Pereltsvaig, Asya. Languages of the World (p. 7) Being fluent in Russian, I cannot understand Ukrainian except for the "bits and pieces."

I think, in principle a robot could do any one of these things, and then they can be combined in one robot. In principle.

Yes, zero interest in your life and its value.

Yes.

Because I have had some interest in the question of rationality of a belief in religion (by an atheist). I have a big ZERO interest in your struggles with life.

Then change a title.

OT

I don't know what skeletons are in your closet, but they bother you.

All or not all, two or not two, battle or not battle - does not depend on anyone's level of understanding. What it has to do with karma? What does the phrase "karma is wrong" mean?

What he said is incorrect. IOW, wrong.

That was what I've said, wasn't it:

I agree that there is no reason that something artificial can't recreate our creativity. The question is, are computers as we know them capable for that, or we'll need different underlying principles?

Yes. Not "us all", not always "two", and not always a "battle."

The Old Cherokee is being simplistic to a degree of being wrong. But, it is perhaps OK as a starter for a little kid.

No. But the topic is, what computers can't do for us. And sometimes a different output is good.