npts2020

Well that is what I tried to address in defining life as needing evolutionary potential, how is that ambiguous? If you can explain to me what evolutionary potential a brick or spring has I may concede they are alive. I would think the definition would point more toward a Turing machine being alive than the brain being dead.

You would have had a hard time drowning in the puddles I dealt with. However you could have easily exceeded your allowable annual radiation dose at a single clean-up if you were not careful or didn't know what you were doing.

If anything it would be slowing the moon down since meteorites would strike more frequently on the side of the direction of motion rather than catching up to strike on the other side. Meteorites are mostly tiny and far outweighed by other effects, sort of like trying to knock the ball off of a large stone kugel by throwing stones at it (you probably couldn't even lift a stone large enough to noticably affect it).

Don't be discouraged. You can't let the (unattainable) perfect get in the way of the good. Even if you can't build a perpetual motion machine, even one that is simply more efficient, has better applications, or is cheaper would be very worthwhile.

Mb94; I dont think those are the only viable alternatives. Here I have written about how to go about automating and electrifying our whole transit system. The blog makes more sense if you start from the oldest posts first. I believe you will find some answers there but you will need more sources as well.

or some other method of collecting taxes.....

Well, IMO one day we may be able to test to prove for sure that a spring has (no) thoughts, feelings, etc. but aren't most of those things predicated on being "alive"? I don't see what evolutionary potential a spring has, or do you wish to use a definition other than the one i gave? I would tend to agree with Mokele and bascule about the brain only being a more complex Turing machine (maybe one with the halting problem solved?). For humans to create a machine that even approaches our abilities in a very small fraction of the time that it has taken nature to create us would be pretty amazing, so it may be a while before we have a definitive answer.

Vesna; I would submit to you that at present there is no way to tell if any Artificial Intelligence is conscious or intelligent. IMO this has more to do with lack of concise definitions that can be agreed upon than way of testing for it. Having said that, there may be a very exact way of doing it someday (how long have we been able to use brain scans for anything?).

Water is one of the most dangerous substances I have ever handled, cleaning up a spill of primary coolant (water that has been through a reactor) at a nuclear power plant.

I wonder if such a bike is legal in the Tour de France?

Something like that. You and I would qualify as god (hopefully two of us would be greater than either individually). Anything that includes myself and positive external factors. Sorry but I am not a god by myself, only a human. Do humans have the ability to become gods? Maybe, but certainly not at this point in our history.

He may have been thinking of the Extreme Universe Space Observatory to be launched from ISS in 2013.

You will have a very hard time finding anything conclusive to support using torture in any circumstances (I am not saying the info isn't out there but that a lot of people have tried to get to the bottom of this question and haven't found it). The best I have seen in probably over 20 books read on the subject is anecdotal that it might have worked in a given situation, all other evidence is from Hollywood. You are in a large majority of those who believe it is effective under some circumstances. I am glad you at least see the point that nobody is able to define those circumstances meaningfully enough to be useful.

This bill is a tougher slog to read through than the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, truly a feat in and of itself. Do you think that is done on purpose? Supposedly, better oversight will happen with this bill so far as I can tell because all of the overseer offices of whatever department will be getting more money. We shall see.....how many $100 bills will fit in a supertanker?

I like to define "god" as simply being anything greater than myself so all of those would apply (even if some only apply as concepts). It also allows me to tell religious fanatics that I am not an athiest with a straight face and move on to discussing more relevant matters. Although I would probably would have a heretical view of god according to most religions.......

Well your definition of determinism isn't from that source (are you happy I filled the screen using the quote now?). They have 7 definitions, none of which are the one you are attempting to use in this discussion. I haven't investigated your other definitions but would be surprised if you didn't use the most obscure and nebulous one available. I will bite and try to define your terms so we can sensibly discuss things. life; any system that can use available external energy to make itself sustainable and has evolutionary potential. memory; ability to accept, store, and recall information feeling; input from the sense of touch thought; visualization through a priori processes emotion; thought and action from instinctual rather than logical processes instinct; tendency of a given species to act in a certain manner intelligence; ability to alter surroundings to provide for self-perpetuation consciousness; awareness of being distinct and separate from ones surroundings All I want from you is a word that would describe a person who believed that everything in the universe has an underlying cause and observes a set of fixed rules?

I agree. The most exciting part to me is that much of this may be (dis)proven in the next two to five years.

Google HR 1 or American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. I am not saying the stimulus will not work but I am saying that it doesn't seem as well focused as could be (lots of R & D and not as much use of what we already have). We are about to spend a fortune on "proving" carbon sequestration rather than on eliminating carbon emissions for example............

Well, presumably the reasons we nuked Japan for went away (otherwise we would have kept doing it) and have not reappeared. The supposed reasons for using torture have not gone away. When the police shoot someone there is a review process (we can argue about its thouroughness and efficacy but there exits one) whether the suspect was pointing a gun at him or if he shot a fleeing suspect in the back. Sometimes cops are brought to account for inappropriate actions. Who has been reviewed and held to account anyone for torturing in the name of America? I am very well aware that cases vary to the extreme and that different situations require different solutions. Those who argue in favor of torture (sometimes) cannot define a clear situation or set of rules for where it will work. Therefore, I don't see how you can rule out the possibility of using it in any situation where there is even the remotest chance that a given detainee (virtually anyone picked up in a battle or raid of suspected hideout) might have that one piece of needed information to prevent "imminent" disaster. What you completely fail to see is that if you allow it in some circumstances, you do allow it in virtually all circumstances since nobody can meaningfully define circumstance to begin with.

My money is on NBC, they had their advertising rates locked in before the current widespread financial panic.

Well that is one of the better parts of the bill. The problem is that someday all of that money will need replacing (last time I looked the Fed was running a deficit for as far as the eye can see into the future). Having just finished skimming the House passed version, I would say it is virtually impossible that the act will not cost more than advertised (way more if the economy gets any worse). There are big $$$$ to be had from it in nearly every sector of the economy, so everyone get out your feed troughs, I mean proposal sheets, and line up for a check of your very own. Enough money to give every man, woman, and child $2,500 in one act of congress............how long can this go on?

How can these comments be interpreted in any other way than torture may be acceptable under some circumstances? Given that it has been conceded that nobody can accurately identify those circumstances, why not apply it universally in the "War on Terror"? If it is acceptable in some cases, why not all?

Sione; Your references for defining determinism are not helping your argument. The last definition given in your first reference is the one you chose to work with (yes the one that is IMO poorly worded), all the other definitions are either verbatim or variations of the one I gave. The reason the definition you used is different is not because of being any better scientific use of the term but because that is how it is used in computer programming, which is somewhat different from how the term is used generally in philosophical discussion. If you wish to say that we can't now build an artificial system to perfectly model the current universe in every detail, I would agree with that. However, that is not saying that the universe does not follow an underlying set of rules that do not change and may one day be discernable by humans to the point of being able to predict anything.

ParanoiA; I accepted your proposition of being ok to use torture in the case of nuclear holocaust. You, however, avoided my question of why we should not use the same justification to use torture as standard operating procedure?

The Republicans in the house (mostly) only opposed the package to give the appearance of there being any opposition to the largest theft of money ever witnessed by humans. If people think the amount of money is mind-boggling, what about the proposed use? The first several corporate handouts have not been well-accounted for, where is the "better accounting" in the current bill? The prime interest rate is at an all-time low and the Federal reserve has flooded substantial money into the "market" so why is credit still so tight and is more money going to make a significant difference? Coroporate America has been caught at its own Ponzi scheme, sometimes called the "derivative market". Some estimates put the "value" of this market at more than 10 times annual world GDP, which only matters if a large enough percentage of them default or are cashed in. The problem is that some of the biggest issuers and backers of these derivatives are not on solid financial ground themselves (can any one say Citibank, GMAC, AIG........). A large scale collapse of the derivative market would expose how much leveraging of finances our government and financial institutions have allowed, almost identical to the levels justs before the Great Depression. Its all about confidence, but such a situation allows no room for error and will crash hard when that confidence is shaken. How much money will it take to prop up that confidence and for how long? IMO flying helicopters over the 825 largest cities in America and shoveling out $1 billion in Ben Franklins would provide as much economic stimulus as giving it out the way it has been done so far. Somebody please show where my analysis is wrong.