| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,630 Views) | |
| DocInBird | Jun 14 2006, 01:00 AM Post #571 |
|
Member
|
TeryT said: "So if you found a complete & functioning computer program comprised of billions of bits, where would you suppose it came from?" Ummm, that's what I do for a living. I speculate, sometimes, on the appropriate techie newsgroups, what the definition of thought is. My robots understand how to use the phone and "call home when they feel sick". Think about this for a moment. How many young children can do that? does this make the 'bots intelligent? They perform complex tasks and can learn. Does that make them intelligent? One client sent me email that one of my bots had sent him email saying "I'm bored." It freaked him out. A machine sent him email expressing emotion. I told him not to worry, that I would send email to his robot and make things right. I did. You are sitting there and either saying to yourself "aha, so that's why his degree is in the psychology of machines", or quivering at the thought of a machine with an email address. A long time ago, I would give them a telephone connection. These days, it is easier just to allow them to connect to the Internet. Natural language processing allows us to "converse" in ways that would scare some folks. "Poor baby, tell me where it hurts?" This is not intelligence. This machine is not really thinking. Some of my most recent 'bots come close though. They might fool you. |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 14 2006, 05:25 AM Post #572 |
![]()
Member
|
How does one go about "demonstrating a design" in the context of this discussion? The definition apparently used by the IDer crowd is "irreducible complexity" and they do not rigorously define that term either. The only qualification for a system to be defined as irreducibly complex are those the IDer says are so. Why, for example, don't they add the bones of the middle ear as an irreducibly complex system? What possible use could those 3 tiny bones have until they were used as part of the hearing mechanism? I'll leave the solution to that question as an exercise for those interested. It does provide an example of the same sort of selection bias evidenced by your previous list; the list which included those huge gas giants orbiting small stars. The only definition for irreducible complexity seems to be "We can't figure out how this came to be, so it must have been designed." |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 14 2006, 05:41 AM Post #573 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Question for supporters of an intelligent designer. ID seems to have trouble finding evidence in the material world to support its theory. Why not argue consciousness as evidence? You know, the cartesian dualism of mind and matter. Isn't the mind irreducibly complex? “there is a great difference between a mind and a body, because the body, by its very nature, is something divisible, whereas the mind is plainly indivisible. . . . insofar as I am only a thing that thinks, I cannot distinguish any parts in me . . . Although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, nevertheless, were a foot or an arm or any other bodily part amputated, I know that nothing would be taken away from the mind. . .” --Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy Just trying to help y'all out.
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 14 2006, 05:39 PM Post #574 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Still cogitatin'? Southern Baptists won't back public school pullout
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 16 2006, 09:48 AM Post #575 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
The pendulum has definitely swung too far. I was one who questioned the adding of the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, since this was actually done by the US Congress. But the wholesale removal of God from general discussion, does even the kids of atheists no good, IMHO. The balance is almost gone in public schools. I spent 7 years working in both public & private schools. (The private schools were not religious based.) It was remarkable to me how much better adjusted & downright intelligent the private school kids were. The atmosphere was like night & day almost. They did not shy away from talking "God theories" in the private ones. Teachers were clamoring for jobs in the the private ones, waiting for years to get in, even though it often meant something of a pay cut in terms of total benefits. Now to be fair, kids in private schools perhaps come from a whole different set of circumstances, etc. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 16 2006, 10:45 AM Post #576 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"But the wholesale removal of God from general discussion, does even the kids of atheists no good, IMHO." General discussion? Here we are discussin' 'im. You mean public school? It was Christians what took him out. By the time Madeline Murry asked that God be optional He'd been so watered down by sectarians, Protestant vs Catholic vs Jew vs Jehovahs Witness vs Mormon vs etc, it made no difference. And the fact is God is still there, just not paid for by our secular government. I spent 8 years in private Christian school. My experience was the opposite of yours. We talked of God, but not science. Took years to catch up with the real and normal world. Intelligence is not taught. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 16 2006, 11:52 AM Post #577 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Well there wasn't balance. Public schools don't have it, and perhaps many Christian ones don't either! The more secular private schools probably achieve the best, and therefore let kids truly exercise their noodles. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 16 2006, 12:47 PM Post #578 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
How does belief in exercise the noodle? You either believe in it, or you don't. There's nothing to reason about. Science, on the other hand, demands skeptical, critical thinking, logical reasoning. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 16 2006, 02:41 PM Post #579 |
|
Member
|
Aw common Eric. Tery is right. Your analogy is flawed. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 16 2006, 02:52 PM Post #580 |
|
Member
|
Yea but how does it move meters? This is the problem we keep fighting over. We all know the mind is irreducibly complex (because we have one), but we can't make it move a meter can we? Its the same issue over the evidence of design. Like the Yanaguni monument, its obvious that it was designed or at least the evidence should be explored, but some scientists can't do it, because meters don't move somewhere. Its sort of like seeing a water mirage in the desert. Is it "there" or not? If you go to where the water looks like it is, you don't find it. But you really did see water. Scientists today, wouldn't even investigate this phenomenon, but the ones that did in the past came up with an explination, because they investigated the evidence. The rest would just say "you aren't really seeing water", but you know you are. Thanks to the scientists that looked into this, we discover that you really are seeing something, but it just isn't what you think it is. Ignoring evidence is never good. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 16 2006, 02:57 PM Post #581 |
|
Member
|
Very simply, the chapter is about what sexual immorality is. The verse about Molech seems missplaced. There may have been an aspect of Molech worship we don't know about. The fact is, the context of the chapter disproves your interpretation. Personally, I would rather be wrong! That way, we could avoid the persecution that is to come over this issue. Unfortunately, its quite plain, homosexual sex is sin. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 16 2006, 03:00 PM Post #582 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Alan "Your analogy is flawed." Could you bother yourself to explain how. " Yea but how does it move meters?" We can measure the activity of the brain. "Its sort of like seeing a water mirage in the desert." Is that what consiousness is, mirage, hallucination, dream, error? "...but some scientists can't do it, because meters don't move somewhere." If it doesn''t move meters, science is not interested. Remember, science is materialistic, naturalistic. If it doesn't move meters, it is not evidence. Unless you change the meaning of evidence, and science. "Thanks to the scientists that looked into this, we discover that you really are seeing something, but it just isn't what you think it is." Which is? Mirage, hallucination, dream, error? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 16 2006, 03:08 PM Post #583 |
|
Member
|
Since when does personal belief have to be religious? Seems the well gets poisened with this one. I can believe that a car in front of me in the left lane won't pull back into the right lane (so I can pass him...) when he is done passing a car. There is no religion involved is there? It just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. My belief came from following too many cars that didn't pull over when they should have. No faith involved, just pessimism My belief in God came from personal experience, having faith and having that faith rewarded (being able to quit smoking, drugs and drinking). Faith was essential. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 16 2006, 03:12 PM Post #584 |
|
Member
|
Chris:"Alan "Your analogy is flawed." Could you bother yourself to explain how." Huh? Tery explained it. I agree with his explination. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 16 2006, 03:12 PM Post #585 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Alan, you are conflating belief with belief in. Your example of belief shows it coming from observable experience. That's not just personal but socially shared. It moves meters. Your example of belief in shows it coming from faith, alone, not observable experience, in fact you yourself use the words "personal experience". It doesn't move meters. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |











1:28 PM Jul 11