Sato

Yes, they all go to hell. In fact, because there is more than one religion that considers all non-believers fated to go to hell, everyone goes to hell. Also, considering that heaven isn't real, there's no point in speculating about what they'd wear.

Sending the stream of images over HTTP might be a faster (I don't have the benchmarks on hand), more secure and more quickly implementable method than having whoever is going to use his app, or whatever it is, directly interact with the FTP server.

I haven't, but nice video!

This seems somewhat related:

If it was such an advance I would suppose that we'd all be searching for autistic and schizophrenia-afflicted mates (maybe innately), but it seems that is, in fact, the antipode of the actual situation.

From what I've seen in different papers pertaining to AI, there's lots of graph theory, probability and statistics, and calculus, but I don't think you need much rigor and formalism (what I think you're referring to by hard level) for the AI/ML applications. Computer vision requires lots of linear algebra, which you may be interested in too.

I think he might be proposing that saving PHP code into a database and then calling that for evaluation after a page is requested is faster than creating new files on the server and include()ing.

Yes I do; I mention how insignificant they are relative to all the damage natural disasters have caused, and how significant the upsides are in preventing damage from the natural disasters. Your second statement signifies that you've yourself conceded that my (and everyone else's) points have overturned all of yours as you aren't able to actually counter anything I contended but send an ambiguous and empty "there are a lot of things wrong with the word, especially if... [meaningless nonsense]". All of the counters brought up in my post and everyone else's clearly show how every single statement you've made is logically invalid, and it pisses me off that you're completely ignoring that and persisting in your fantasy and neglecting all coherent opposition, completely against the point of a debate.

I think what s1eep is describing is linguistic relativity which proposes that how we comprehend the external world is shaped by our language, a form of which states that language determines and potentially limits our thought, but this hypothesis certainly doesn't have enough evidence to be taken as anything more than a consideration with some very particular success. An example is languages that allocate genders to objects (most European languages) causing a clear distinction between most of these objects in the speaker's abstraction of them, contrary to an English speaker who would see such things as almost homogeneous in this sense with exception to ideas that have a direct connection and connotation to gender (bra, mustache, pink, dumbbells). There is also the case of some languages that don't describe locations relative to the speaker like left, right, backwards, forwards, etc, but rather only absolute locations such as east, west, north, and south which seems to cause a fundamentally different idea of spatial location than that may be held by someone who speaks a more common language. Despite this, I find the communication medium of spoken and especially written language to be an advantage, as though most simple ideas can be automatically abstracted and understood by the human brain without much difficulty ('jump', 'walk', 'remove', 'put', 'colour', 'ground', 'sky', 'circle', 'square'), in order to have a greater understanding of the world we must be able to develop much more complex ideas, and this is limited by most of our less-than-ideal intellectual abilities and short term memories. But, because of our linguistic abilities, we are able to develop chains of composite ideas like those used by science to understand the processes of nature (climate/weather or our digestive systems) which could not be understood otherwise, and even if our memories were capable of storing and abstracting such systems of simple ideas after direct observation of such processes over time, a task very inefficient for the pure purpose of learning itself and likely only to be done by a few individuals who take interest in that specific system, there are some basic ideas which are themselves so complicated that not many individuals could discover them with exceptions like Euler, Euclid, and Newton; the only reason that much of humanity understands many of these basic concepts of nature is because they were preserved and clearly communicated through language by their discoverers. With all of this, I would concede that language and words actually allow humans to have a significantly greater understanding of the world than naught. Also, as for your other point, much of the natural disasters that occurred before humans even came into play, like volcanoes and asteroid strikes as some earlier posters stated, polluted the environment with much more gas and dust and killed off many more species of plant and animal than we have ever even come close to doing, but now we are ourselves developing technology, allowed by language, to prevent these disasters and protect the animals, as we have naturally evolved to do in response to a natural sense of threat and danger in ourselves. Though, we have gone much farther than any other known animal, most likely due to our development of language among other factors, so it may be difficult to connect but it is all, again, natural.

Is mathematics not just an emergent property of biology and interacting neurons like any other form of consciousness, perception, and understanding?

I would recommend watching Khan's videos at 2x speed by enabling the Youtube HTML5 beta features (http://youtube.com/html5), as his videos do end up sounding a bit slow due to his teacher's cadence.

I don't know if anyone's posted about it yet, but origin here is a bit ambiguous and I think undermines the correctness of this proof. You state that if god is the origin of all that exists (1) and all that exists, exists in space time (2), then god is the origin of space-time (3), which is logically sound (assuming (2) is axiomatic, pertaining to the definition of existence in religion), but you follow with "thus god cannot be in space-time" (4), which is incoherent. An origin is a certain temporal position that serves as the first part of some chain of causality, just as my house one second ago is the origin of my house right now, but is still considered of my house existing in space, just in a previous temporal position, and a ball falling down at 1 meter is the cause of a ball falling down at 2 meters from the ground, but this system is certainly a part of space-time. Conclusion/TL;DR: So the proof fails at (4) as, as you describe it, even crediting god with the adjective "origin" which explicitly refers to a characteristic unique to events in space-time, a temporal precursor, the first three statements imply that goes does indeed exist within space-time contrary to statement 4. Note that I am an agnostic-atheist and this is in no sense an advocation of of the existence of god, but you'd have better luck establishing a logical proof for the existence of something like that than against.

Hm; I haven't heard of this. More information please?

That looks like diffraction grating film, which separates the individual color components of incoming light.

Well, considering that life is really just a class of material and systems complexity, if a computer program existed with the complexities of a simple cell, then I suppose it would be classified as life. Take a look at Avida, and it's even partially intelligent: http://avida.devosoft.org/

I don't understand; why are you echoing the actual PHP code? And down the same path, you would be evaluating it (eval()), which doesn't seem very efficient either compared to just including the file. What is your rationale?

Have you heard of gas?

In the context of the passage (on the topic of astrobiology), the most basic or most fundamental of all questions in the field could be "is there other intelligent life in space?" which could be answered by an intelligently communicated radio signal. Less basic, or higher level questions, those which can be answered after the basic one, could be "does this intelligent life communicate via speech like us?" and "how many planets do these intelligent life forms inhabit?" Horizon, while most concretely meaning the line where the earth touches the sky if you're staring down an ocean or desert, also means "the limit of something." This makes sense because the horizon is the limit to how far one can see, so the other definition applies to other limits. It is pushing out or increasing the limits of our knowledge. In this sense is another way of saying in this context.

"life evolves naturally if given the right conditions, or whether there is something very special about the Earth to have fostered the variety of life forms" That statement is a bit ambiguous, but I'm guessing that "something very special" is referring to supernatural or divine reasons for why the Earth may have been able to have so many different life forms, and it is being contrasted to the scientific idea of life evolving naturally wherever the conditions (like atmosphere, temperature, etc) are suitable. Here's another key: Conditions: Things that must be in order for something else to be true | The conditions of me being able to breath are that I have functioning lungs and a nervous system Foster: Help or encourage to survive, grow, or continue | Earth fosters the development of many life forms Contrasted: Displayed as different Ambiguous: Having multiple different meanings, so as to make one uncertain as to which one he should take Supernatural: Of something not natural and disagreeing with what has been verified, like the idea that people get sick because of demons Divine: From or because of an all-powerful being or god.

"The great accomplishment is language , which has enabled us to accumulate and coordinate our achievements, insights, and mini creations. Our big technologies are collective efforts, cultural products, all and always made possible by language." This means that humans' greatest accomplishment is language, not technology, because our language has allowed us to put together, record, and organize our past achievements, insights, and inventions. It is saying that all the big technologies that we humans have made were because we could communicate with other people and groups using language, and save all of these discoveries and inventions on paper and by telling people through language. Here is a key with some definitions that may better your understanding: Homo sapiens: Humans, People Language: Method of communicating, or Method of talking Enabled: Allowed Achievement, Accomplishment: A Thing that has been done successfully, like creating a technology or art Insight: A deeper look into something; like looking deeper in nature as science, or finding the meaning of a painting deeper than colors in art Technology: Creations that help humans, like machines and tools; simple technology is a hammer and complex technology could be a computer Collective: With or because of many people or things | So, collective efforts are efforts by many people Products: Things that come out of the work or effort of multiple people or things | So, cultural products are products of multiple cultures or multiple people in a culture

I think that psychology is definitely a science, but a very soft one indeed. A good analog ad extremum would be taking in the fact that the observation and study of chess pieces — moves, interactions, and all — independent of the actual players is technically a science as well. But it's obvious that one might consider this a very high level or 'soft' science because of how so far down the chain of causality it is. Yes, now that I'm thinking about it that's definitely how I'd define the spectrum of soft-hard sciences; the closer to the fundamental end of some chain of causality some subject is, the 'harder' or lower-level/deeper the study (science) of it is and the farther up it is, the higher-level or 'softer' it is. The chess game is a result of the psychological processes in some intelligent being (waving the motor movements which cause the physical pieces to move, which are in essence caused by the psychological processes themselves), which are a result of some neurological/psychophysiological processes in your brain which are are caused by biological processes of a similar order throughout your body, those which are a result of chemical processes aggregating to form your cells and other biological systems, which are too a result of the (most fundamental/hardest/lowest-level) physical particle/space/time interactions which of course could be a result of some even more fundamental physical interaction, maybe string theory or whatever else it might be. Maybe mathematics, e.g. mathematical monism? Who knows.

I think getting an app store license costs money, $99 a year if I recall.

http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

I think it's alluding to the common question of "What the hell was going on in his head?" by suggesting that he's actually deriving physical characteristics all day rather than thinking about murder.

Remotely transferring the quantum information, right? I believe that's what it was, and what lots of photonics people are doing in QC now.