GutZ

As I was sitting at my horrible temp job thinking I wish I was somewhere else, earlier as I was testing out there sensors and everyone looking at me as if I was crazy I realized something. How is it I could picture myself on a beach without having the input? Or in other words how does my brain project an image or even save an image without my eyes even being need. It just dawn on me as being weird....

Are you saying the universe is modelled by organic influences before they even existed? I really don't get this as all.

Yeah If situation = 0 Then "blah" add reminder If situation = 1 Go to mall Criteria for situation: Time Mood etc etc remember too you will program it for self learning, recalling will be a big part of it. I think AI is difficult to see because of the sheer amount of data involves...Think about every input from womb to end of death for a human... I think AI is being held back purely from a technological standpoint.

1. Sisyphus 2. Severian (or Klaynos if not allow two) 3. Norman Alber 4. Severian 5. Insane Alien 6. Paranoia

I prefer to not play chess with strategies lol....it seems so boring otherwise. I like things that test your innate ability.

err so baised....I didnt even see this till today or I'd nominate....but no point I guess...

Niobium...damn cant remember see that metal...nb I know we had stock of it...interesting.

Hey can there be a prize for people who are not smart and don't really contribute except for annoy all the mod and experts with stupid questions? I think I am shoe in for that! YT will back me up on this one.

You have no idea how badly I want to understand what you all have said; I really have to just take physic courses...because like I dont even know what "Minkowski space-time" is.

It says Einsteins Eqaution (General relativity) + Quantum Mechanics = God R(something)= 1/2(something) R=8(pi)Tmv

Well if are going to make laws against things that annoy us why not. If we want to stop emitting harmiful gases lets work on cars and certain industrial plants. I think it's convient that no one ever complains about these polluters since probably the majority of anti-smokers use them directly or indirectly (by product use). I mean what's the average life expectancy in a heavily populated area with frequenct car use? or http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,1999260,00.html or http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11484 The least of people worries should be 30 minutes of second hand smoke, even if it were true.

There is alot of BS and for those of us who don't have a PhD in biology, physics, chemistry, including all sub-catorgories, simultaneously.....Are often going to either believe one source or another. I can't prove or disprove anything without knowledge on the subject. So if a scientist told me that chemicals have the ability to self-replicate or a Preacher guy tells me God did it....What really is a more a legitmate stance. I know science as whole and from what I have experienced proved correct, like if I throw a ball up in the air it will come down...I can even caculate it before hand from what science has told me. The problem is just because one aspect of science has it correct, doesnt mean everything is correct. It's not like I can say "Oh that's labelled science so it's correct", you can't do that. The scientific community does this alot without realising it. Look at that first attack on evolution (video), it has nothing to do with evolution, but its status in science. Science claims this and it does nothing for it, it perpetuates misconceptions. Whether it's a fact, theory, model or tonka truck doesn't matter. I think all these arguements work on that permisses they feed each other. You send someone a link to say "talk origins"....what does that do, those are just words. Now most people in the science community understand that there is tonnes of work and experiments behind it but show me these climate simulations, show how you constructed the experiments, don't just link people to a page that says "What they say is wrong, this is correct"...I can get that at any page, those references mean nothing to a guy like me. (I am not saying that's my view or thoughts, but I write it this way for fun)

lol I think I see the an equation for gravity.

The whole part about it being "annoying" isn't really a strong arguement. I find many things annoying that people do, i.e. like people complaining all the time, parents who let there kids do anything, etc. I can't ban these people from public buildings can I? So this is purely a health question. So yes I would have a problem if science is used incorrectly to elevate someone's personal belief to a false factual statement, and in turn get away with it.

I have nothing against patriotism. In a sense it creates being or thing that doesn't do wrong or right...let me expand that. A countries leader can make all kinds of mistakes and you can disagree with them, lots of bad things could be going on in your country but for "the country" your willing to work it out. The true and sound basic values and beliefs are personalized, or the essences of a country inhabitated by the people. They always show those over the hill Americians on TV Yelling "USA! USA!" and they have no idea why they even do it....that's not patriotism...

lol that one could go either way. We are so obsessed in find all the answers when really it's all trivial in the end. but yeah we dont have to be amazingly intelligent to be the most intelligent creature. I think too though mass destruction of ourselves show more intelligence in a specific way, if you truly feel humans do no good.

Depends. I'd like to see corps being taxed beyond a specific profit limit though and have that added to a health care fund. This would force corps to not act so ruthlessly, or they will just have it taken away. Of course people will say that this is discourage people from wanting to gain economically, but I really don't see how corps like wal-mart really help America when it jumps overseas to make a profit. Or like "hey I dont want to spend money on enviromental and safety costs...let jump over to a third world country pay the people nothing to work there, and return large profits shipping product back to "America" where we can get "Americians" to pay top dollar. There are some good companies out there though, they do get overshadowed by alot of these other arsehole companies. Essential everything will evolve towards some sort of aspect similiar to a corperation, it's just more efficient. As much as they are pinned evil, people will miss them ( well I guess no one below middle class anyway). (sorry if if that has alot of mistakes...evening shift...tired...well and you should be use to it by now)

The original question is ill-formed then. The part about a human being there or not is irrelevant by all physical means, therefore not really a question, but I dont think that the intent. So to me answering yes would be incorrect in other ways.

I hardly ever understand what Norman Alber says lol.

*Pretend like you ran out of the house to see whats going down* "Holy, must be one of those exploding trees from "insert random country no one has heard about"!

I want to rep YT for his quote. Quick! Hurry! Implement!

Seem like there is a reputation system in place, but oddly only for me, I see my green bar/box and if I click it says I have 10 rep points. I'vw had this at another forum, so I know I should be able to rep others but doesn't seem to have that option. Also I never read anything about it so is this just like a glitch?

I am not for banning fire-arms because that just wont work, but on the other hand if every other person has a hand-gun, I can see a tendency for people to bring bigger weapons around. I don't think the mentality of these crazy people is going to be "Hey, now they have guns too, maybe I shouldn't kill anyone anymore", it more of a "Now I need bigger faster guns." When it comes to bringing death I am sure many people want the upper-hand.

"Tommorrow will be the day after today."

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=601025