Ben Banana

Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine

Are you silly enough to be teased by the thought that he (possibly) preferred the human mind being more than a mere machine? Just from my recollection, he never specified which he believed in most anyway. Also, I think this is a silly prompt of Kurt. A lot of things are too big for the human mind, because otherwise we're omniscient; but the capacity of the human brain is astronomical.

Gödel's Theorem shows that human thought is more complex and less mechanical than anyone had ever believed

Or it shows that they don't understand any mechanics relevant to understanding intelligence. Shows... shows... Ahh, Vegas is not the right place for this discussion!

This basic fact which showed that human beings can solve problems or answer questions for which no algorithm exists to prove the truth value of such statements led to the conclusion that human thought was in no way identical to the mechanical computations carried on such computational machines like the Turing machines.

No it doesn't. You're making an obvious exploitation of Godel's incompleteness theorems.

1. Whoever believes that statement assumes consistency is a principle at the ultimatum of comprehension... which is a very shallow assumption. The ability to "solve problems or answer questions" is extremely distant from Godel's work. What the hell are you thinking!?

2. Those evil "algorithms" are simply better at proving things than humans are. This is irrelevant anyway.

"like the Turing machines." The Turing machines? You mean the Turing machine? (it's a theoretical model, not a physical machine)

In my opinion, I think Turing completely misunderstood intelligence.

It is because Bernard D'Epsagnat and many others who argue for a God hypothesis are Intellectually honest and I am with them. We have arrived at this conclusion by looking at the amazing available evidence in both Religion and Science.

 

 

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

They are intellectually honest? Okay... and there's amazing available evidence? Um... okay then (haha, no). So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas? Are you sure the amazing evidence is not counter-productively proving the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, rather than your cheese cake?

In a nutshell: Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

or in other-words, we're all about honestly understanding, not about having good ideas. It's incredibly easy to get lost in the possibility that an attractive idea you have is so special that it's worth more than the brains of everyone around you. This doesn't mean you're not 'intellectually honest,' it suggests that you're sincerely misguided.

"Mining the Sky" for Earth? Why is there only talk of bringing it back down to Earth? What would we even do with such resources? Most Sci-Fi resides beyond Earth.

Megastructures are under my eye (i.e. spaceships, Dyson spheres and artificial worlds!) Zero-gravity provides a very free medium which should simplify automated construction. Automatized production systems could be highly modular, reproductive and self-maintaining; principles which yield a system capable of building virtually anything we can imagine that is theoretically-feasible! I think we should do our best to live within the confines of Earth and crunch down as much efficiency as we can before considering extraterrestrial resources as core supplements, so I believe that we should extend beyond Earth with distributed (even discrete) ventures, rather than with the ambition to supply an extremely centralized system. I guess the term 'Astrology' would be renewed for an engineering practice, and that's just fruit-loopin cool.

And, your thoughts?

I care for the common esoteric essence hidden in all the major recognized religions of the world.

*sigh* WHY SO!? Seriously. Don't expand on what it means. Tell me why you care.

I care for the whole Gnostic thought

WHY!?

any internet thread or discussion will eventually get around to Hitler and the Nazis.

Oh yes. This even applies to "Are bananas better than apples?"

Really, I think this law usually predicts the behavior of threads strongly connected to ideological subjects. Stuff like that. And I think it's quite genuine too. Ideological discussions should be cut away from every community upon the World Wide Web which fears the results of nasty debate-phenomena such as Godwin's law. Squeeze all the gravitas out and sell it to the physics forum! I recommend the Administration to simply delete the Religion forum. Oddly enough, I've participated in it more than any other forum (at the moment), and I hate it more than any. I'm madly disturbed by this.

I really don't care who wrote the Gospel of Thomas or who taught them to whom

What do you care about the Gospel of Thomas? Tell me precisely.

Read this after you respond with a good answer:

I am not highly experienced with such algorithms, though I do have minimal experience. A few nights ago... I was working on some utility for managing buffers in a cache-like way, but I was merely winging it. In fact, I haven't even heard of these terms until today, but I did a quick search on them and soon realized what you are asking. Do you have a working MRU implementation? As far as I can speak, I recommend you do the experimental science and confirm the answer yourself. There's also the likelihood that someone who has a deeper theoretical background in cache algorithms could easily answer this question without necessarily testing it. I'm sorry I can not be of more help to you. Cheers

To me, it seems quite apparent that theism is arbitrary and nothing more. Whether theism is arbitrary or not yields a critical truth corresponding to theism as a fact, doesn't it? Do you believe theism is not arbitrary (I suspect you believe so), and if so, could you elaborate in your own argument (please no bogus citations) why?

Please read: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arbitrary

that we have experimented with ourselves and that we are not talking BS here.

Oh, yourself? Not another source? Is it finally time for an argument directly from yourself? Well, then please continue...

All it shows is that you're not taking the arguments from the theists side in good faith and going on believing in your falsified beliefs.

I think another remark like this would just be wild. How does it show that at all? Buddy, that's just called your feelings, they're not absolute. In conclusion -- holding away delusion -- you've lost. Now read yourself. Really, you're pulling a dead argument. Could you stop now?

The entire nature of this discussion has prominently involved you pulling script-cards ('citations') out of a bag, running out, scratching your head and restarting the cycle. Not only do your sources suck, but also the way you use them doesn't build your argument very well. This is my perspective projected onto the essence of your responses: "Oh, I see you've brought another thing up. I don't have any time to address that myself, so try reading stuff from this webpage and maybe you'll even realize why it's relevant (reading tip: 'oughta be a deluded theist first): <flying spaghetti monster>. That's my counter-argument. Well, um, I'm going to eat some donuts in my laundry room, for some reason, so I'll see you later."

while some religions have done considerable work for the good of mankind?

Like what?

How can something we see now, be out of sight, later?

I probably won't answer this accurately, but I can do it while entertaining myself:

Do you know what a network ping is? I like to think of it in that way. You know how it takes some time to download content from a 'website'? Yeah, well, now imagine that the server gets eaten by a giant cheese monster before the server can send you (the client) the content which was requested. That's rather easy to imagine. Now imagine another web server, which is slowly and cruelly being propelled into the loneliness of outer-space by a llama. What will happen? When your connection rate eventually becomes slow enough, you will soon muster in frustration and say: "The connection *disappeared*!" There's more: imagine a server which is being carried away by Einstein bagels. The smell of these bagels stretches spacetime, causing the server to move away faster than the speed of light. It's like being caught into the event-horizon of a blackhole, but the counterpart phenomenon.

I could stab this with so many 'good' guesses. It might just have a very broad range of causes. Interesting topic, though.

EDIT: Would it be fine if, in the case of lacking a strong appeal towards any specific probable explanation, we could simply list a number of 'good' ones, then further weed them out, generalize and perhaps classify by discussion? This will be interesting.

I mean can we really write an algorithm to define life?

Algorithms in their plain nature don't "define" anything, and I thought we were talking about 'Artificial Intelligence,' not 'Artificial Life.'

What is it that we're missing? any ideas are welcomed. Put forward your theory on how it can be created.

... I bet people are anxious to share their ideas, though I doubt anyone who's discovered anything valuable would share it plainly in a silly forum-thread such as this.

Non-lethal... ? I'd rather die.

@Modnote

It's not a silly out-of-blue remark. "Jung's interest in European mythology and folk psychology has led to accusations of Nazi sympathies, since they shared the same interest."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_jung#Response_to_Nazism

There's a variety of material which discusses this specifically with regards to Carl Jung. This is to illustrate the image I see: a very flawed psuedo-scientist.

"Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?"

That's exactly how science should be. That's why it's different. Also, we should realize the difference between a framework for understanding and a materialistic assertion. Science usually seems quite permissive as long as a proposed framework does not cross with materialistic assertions too aggressively. Compare "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" with "String Theory." Now imagine the consequence of particle physics being handled alike these, e.g. consider the Higgs Boson. The 'Higgs Boson' was a very materialistic proposition in the sense which means it was a hypothesis with a high necessity for proof of being materialistically real. Of course, Isaac Newton tested his ideas, but in a very different sense: for confirming a more abstract range of consistency between his theory and reality. Due to the nature of his theory, the only fact which mattered was whether his theory validly applied to accurately predicting and modelling phenomena in reality; not whether it completely and materialistically corresponded to reality. We should take issue with theorists who construct mere theory (not solutions) with irresponsibly arbitrary constituents. Theory which begins as a solution for predicting phenomena is acceptable, and theory which begins as a machine for discovering materialist facts which may serve as gateways to validating more predictive theory is acceptable too. It is unacceptable when a theory begins as a machine to assert pretty materialist facts in such an arbitrary way that the theory may just as well be designed to gloriously solve all other theorists' frustrations with a magic pill. Then the fanatics dance.

How will more of the same from Romney/Ryan save us from the disaster that has been Republican policy the past decade?

I see no reason why voters would favor Romney beside the forces of their strong ideological grasps. I'm trying to figure this out. Honestly, could rigney come back and concisely tell us why Romney is so great besides Obama being not so great? Could there be more aspects about Romney to perceive favorably beside an ideological contrast towards Obama -- which is, furthermore, so vague it seems subjective to the voter's perception? I only manage to see this favor caused by a force of ideology rather than reasoning with concrete principles.

Now to keep myself clear, what kind of ideological chords? Unfortunately, I can not see much principle substance behind Romney. I am curious to understand what exactly rings in rigney with his favor towards Romney. I'm reading through the topic and I still fail to see his appeals to Romney elaborated. I'll admit this (my assumption regarding the influences of ideological forces) is just a guess. I am a dummy, so rigney better spoon feed me with his applesauce and get it through my head.

Though meanwhile, I reason that favor for Mitt Romney as the next U.S. President is just idiotic.

EDIT:

@moth

Well to be honest, I really didn't intend it to be rhetoric in a public manner. I liked the idea (it was more of personal rhetoric) -- though you're right, I should have kept it to myself. As well, I should think through my personal-teases before sharing them.

Haha really? That's completely invalid. I like to hang my graphs upside down because it simply makes them easier for me to read. Are that insisting that I go to college and learn to read graphs correctly? What a scum bag. How dare you!

You live with your mom, don't you?

Unfortunately, no. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said that.

Yes, I meant, answers have likely already been suggested/asserted & discussed.

Where is that?

The various stores of culinary resources within my residence.

Oh yes, and just because 'God' is a completely arbitrary, and even ridiculous concept brought by your (possibly imposed) religious involvement "doesn't mean he isn't there." It's all dependent on your willingness to continue the game of asserting such a being in existence. That's actually not faith.

I'm picky with my diet too. Unfortunately, if I only ate what I wanted, I would starve. We have no good food here! Agh!

I'm knowledgeable enough about all sciences to deliver good answers to other members of this forum.

I like making prompts, because they help people (me atleast) think:

What determines the chance that a politician yields resolution by a certain issue? You must be asking, rather: Does Mitt Romney understand the principles necessary to solve your issue? Well, which of ourselves understand the principles necessary? How so? What do you think are the principles behind a healthy economy, and how well are these supported by evidence?

These questions have probably already been answered somewhere within this thread, but I'm just throwing this out there. Time to read 7 pages.

Carl Jung and Devudu were not goat herders, they were highly intellectual people and most people are not aware of their works

I would like to point out, this is the exact same case as with Adolf Hitler. Also, Jung's manner of approach to 'scientific' and 'philosophical' matters has many similarities to Hitler's.