Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#527705 Aug 17, 2012
Brother Marine wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the corrected version.
Tide with Beach and corrected by Brother Marine wrote:
You're annoyed by my confidence,
exactly because it does make sense,
I'd offer to teach you Catcher
but you're just too dense.
I am confident in Christ
and it's something you can't beat.
So you run away and hide
beneath your own white sheets.
The evidence I show
is too much for your superficial mind,
you go through life with blinders on
but then tell me that I'm blind.
It's true I have no fear of atheism
but I don't need to say so in a mirror.
It's the truth of the resurrection
that allows me to debate you without fear.
You're annoyed by my apologetics,
because your lack of understanding is so pathetic.
I'm not an expert in theology
but you won't even bother to debate it with me.
Yes I am confident!
Because of Christ I don't need to fear
I'm free of the tumor that is atheism
with all of it's smoke and mirrors.
I believe because of the evidence
and no matter what you say or do,
I am filled with hope and confidence
which is more than I can say for you.
Yes I'm so confident!
But only because of God's grace
I just wish I could see you read this
so I could see the stunned look upon your smug face!
Somehow I don't think you'll give it a gold star and I'm okay w/ that
Oh no, I'm an honest guy and call it as I see it.

Gold star BM.

I disagree with everything you say of course.

Nevertheless, well done.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#527706 Aug 17, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I am having a difficult time placing it into words that can fit in a forum, understanding these things is easy for me, explaining them is another matter entirely. Basically we would have to map out each individual brain completely, then hope that the exact same number of neurons exist in the exact same portions of the brain with the exact same connections to the exact same neurons for a data transfer to be successful. To transfer to digital format we would at least have to map out the individual brain completely, and then customize the software to match that brain precisely.
It's much easier to just make thinking machines, we can simulate static and organized neural networks pretty well, memory and speed are the biggest issues we have right now.
If anything, it's just impractical no matter how much we understand of it. That impracticality makes it impossible. The neural map of your brain is even more distinct than your fingerprints, and way more complex.
I gotcha.

By the way, this is the most interesting discussion to take place on this thread in months.

What about dream sharing? Do you think it's possible that dreams could be shared between two or more people through some sort of network? I'd imagine, at least at first, you'd need to host the dream in one of the brains, and the "observers" would have limited power in controlling the dream environment.

Did you see the movie "The Cell"? That's pretty much what that movie is about. I think I might try to watch that soon, along with Lawnmower Man. Scifi is so awesome.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#527707 Aug 17, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I gotcha.
By the way, this is the most interesting discussion to take place on this thread in months.
What about dream sharing? Do you think it's possible that dreams could be shared between two or more people through some sort of network? I'd imagine, at least at first, you'd need to host the dream in one of the brains, and the "observers" would have limited power in controlling the dream environment.
Did you see the movie "The Cell"? That's pretty much what that movie is about. I think I might try to watch that soon, along with Lawnmower Man. Scifi is so awesome.
Everything you say is very intriguing, Tide.

But you have to pay the rent.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#527708 Aug 17, 2012
Alexander of Earth wrote:
<quoted text>
That's where ur wrong. Canis lupius familiaris is itself a subspecies. Chihuahua is a BREED. It is not a natural subspecies. It is a BREED. BRED by H. sapiens. Since u didn't know H. sapiens is a species, u wouldn't know that Primates are an ORDER.
Read something about systematics first and then get back to us.
Here's Humans:
Life:
Life on Earth
Domain:
Eukaryota
Kingdom:
Animalia
Phylum:
Chordata
Class:
Synapsida
Class:
Mammalia
Order:
Primates
Family:
Hominidae
Tribe:
Hominini
Genus:
Homo
Species:
H. sapiens
That's exactly what I said just maybe not clearly enough for you. The Chihuahua like all other dogs is subspecies of the wolf , I just didn't use their Latin names.

But what I was trying to convey was humans similar to dogs are branches on their tree to a larger family.

http://itc.gsw.edu/faculty/bcarter/histgeol/p...
Common Sense

Ottawa, Canada

#527709 Aug 17, 2012
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
...
We might create artificial life and provide it with an artificial consciousness. We may be able to do things like transfer and store that artificial consciousness so that it might persists after one or more of its physical vessels is lost.
Therefore we might be able to provide for our creation what is not possible for us.
As time progresses, our artificial creation might surpass us in many ways and eventually supplant us.
Clearly this is not a metaphor for humanity and its imagined creators.
According to the stories, most of our imagined creators fear the thought that mankind would surpass and eventually supplant them.
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen pretty much every scifi movie or series that deals with artificial intelligence.
It might be possible, I don't know, for us to digitize the human brain, or in other words, make a copy that can exist inside an artificial brain. It might also be possible to grow copies of specific human brains, or generic ones.
Artificial intelligence could be modeled on human perceptions or decision making processes. I don't know if we could ever "improve" on the human brain, outside of the human brain. We could make a substantial improvement in brain function by advancing in our knowledge of the brain and methodologies for education. I don't see how we could ever create something with more abilities than us without having those abilities ourselves. How else could we implement them? It's possible we may stumble across a way of creating an AI with better learning capabilities, but we would have to sacrifice those things that hinder those abilities in us, things that are helpful (for us), mostly emotional things. It depends on what our goals are for the AI.
Mere speculation on my part.

I've seen how rapid technology have advanced in the last few decades.

We have broken many barriers.

Baud rates for examples.

I remember the days of the 110 baud acoustic couplers.

Going to 300 baud was a dream and then 1200 baud.

Soon after it was up to 9600 and beyond on twisted pairs of copper wires.

Then of course there were memory chips.

Well before that there were vacuum tubes then transistors.

Soon after falling in love with my slide rule there were LED pocket calculators.

There were four-bit microprocessors, then 8-bit, then 16-bit, and continuing to 64-bits.

Does anyone actually need a 128-bit microprocessors?

Do you see where this is going?

Technology have gone ahead in leaps and bounds.

I remember when handwriting recognition was considered to be impossible, then we had to write a specific way so that it would be machine readable.

Now with fuzzy logic and neural networks, pattern recognition has advanced.

It seems like whatever you consider to be impossible today, someone is out there making it possible in the future.

Chess playing programs are beating most human players using brute-force, no need to work on more complex chess playing algorithms.

I wasn't referring to the digitization of the human brain, leave our organic brains where they are. This is a new path, we have gone beyond ELIZA.

Admittedly, the chatbots out there are not too impressive, but I have not really done too much research.

We might not need to improve on the human brain with our artificial ones, that would be the job for the bio-engineers. But we will most likely improve the capabilities of our artifical ones.

We do create things with more abilities than we possess, we have refine our tools and tool making abilities.

We cannot get to mars on our own power, but we can get one of our machines/tools out there. It's like flying.

We implement them with our tools, our best tools are the ones that have some degree of intelligence, the ones that are either automated or can be automated.

Not much of a sacrifice when we give our tools abilities beyond those that we possess, we benefit when these tools takes us beyond our limits.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#527711 Aug 17, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I gotcha.
By the way, this is the most interesting discussion to take place on this thread in months.
What about dream sharing? Do you think it's possible that dreams could be shared between two or more people through some sort of network? I'd imagine, at least at first, you'd need to host the dream in one of the brains, and the "observers" would have limited power in controlling the dream environment.
Did you see the movie "The Cell"? That's pretty much what that movie is about. I think I might try to watch that soon, along with Lawnmower Man. Scifi is so awesome.
I really don't see why dream sharing is not possible, the sensory neurons are pretty standard for each type of sensory system, so long as the species were the same or sensed things the same it would be feasible. The problem with dreams that I would see is the mental interpretation of that sensory input, since it's not actual stimulation it may be translated differently between the subjects.

Translating them to mechanical data may be a bit of a challenge, again the whole translation issue. The brain doesn't think like computers at all, and it develops it's own language which varies between organisms a bit. But because of dreams being on the surface, so to speak, it's possible based on what I know. It would be an interesting field of research, and may even help us develop a mechanical method for inducing lucid dreaming.

Also, thanks for the compliment.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#527712 Aug 18, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I DID mean I am sorry that you've had bad experiences with Christians, but that doesn't I thought they were wrong.
If you're gonna give someone "one chance", then don't misread. My first (and only line) was: "Wrong, wrong, wrong", then I went on. I meant that your "evil christian" outlook is wrong - which is why I went on to say that you can't blame all Christians for the evil acts of few.
The point is that I am not a mind reader, I did not misread your first line read wrong, wrong, wrong.

What you are asking is to give a first chance second time, Sorry, it does not work that way.

I have accepted your explanation, and that’s it as far as I am concerned

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#527713 Aug 18, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Then at least be consistent, remove all implements of murder from society, knives, fertilizer, fuels, baseball bats ....... any thing that could be used to kill anyone.
Do you see how stupid that is yet?
The fact is, if a person is determined to murder, there is not much that will stop them, though a gun might give a weaker person a fighting chance.
I was stating fact. There is no argument with the fact that every household in Switzerland from which a family member served in the military must by law contain a gun and ammunition. There is no argument with the fact that those guns are used to give Switzerland the highest domestic murder rate per capita than anywhere else in the world.

Of course anything could be used as a weapon, self defence courses over the world teach this. A rifle is a weapon, no need to even consider ‘as’, it is designed and built to be a weapon. It is considered by the people that have custody of them to be a weapon.

It saves having to think when you have the urge to kill someone.

There is no need to think “Now what can I use to kill my wife, hmm, maybe go to the kitchen and choose a nice long knife, no wait a minute, I’ll get a jerry can from the garage and buy some fuel from the local filling station to douse her in fuel, now have I got some matches?. Or how about the baseball bat I used at college, no… I have an idea I can use that rifle in the cupboard,

Do you see how stupid that is yet?

The point is that a person determined to murder who is armed with a rifle does not have the luxury of thinking it over.

Ehh, have you ever had to face a gun pointed in anger at close range? What chance?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#527714 Aug 18, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Switzerland didn't even make the top ten on this list; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cmQ_BSjpqRYXX
This is definitely starting to sound like a lie to me. Don't you realize how much that damages your credibility??
I said highest ‘domestic’ murder rate per capita but you are welcome to misconstrue my wording if it makes you feel better. That does not alter the fact that you changed my meaning to create an objectionable post. Don't you realize how much that damages your credibility?

I am European and use the word domestic in the manner of Europeans, to mean home, the household. What you consider the word to mean I really don’t know.

Almost 50% of armed crime involves those military issue guns.

The overall gun crime rate in Switzerland has declined dramatically since the early 1990s

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#527715 Aug 18, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, REALLY?!?!?
Oh really!

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#527716 Aug 18, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
And ummmm you should maybe cite your source of information, otherwise you sound like a lying Christard.
QI, that’s quite an intelligent program so I doubt you watch it

But you could also try researching

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index.html

and

http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2010-13099/

BTW, what has got into your knickers today?
Vince Vaughn

Gardendale, AL

#527717 Aug 18, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't see why dream sharing is not possible, the sensory neurons are pretty standard for each type of sensory system, so long as the species were the same or sensed things the same it would be feasible. The problem with dreams that I would see is the mental interpretation of that sensory input, since it's not actual stimulation it may be translated differently between the subjects.
Translating them to mechanical data may be a bit of a challenge, again the whole translation issue. The brain doesn't think like computers at all, and it develops it's own language which varies between organisms a bit. But because of dreams being on the surface, so to speak, it's possible based on what I know. It would be an interesting field of research, and may even help us develop a mechanical method for inducing lucid dreaming.
Also, thanks for the compliment.
So you are admitting that God does exist then, huh?
Vince Vaughn

Gardendale, AL

#527718 Aug 18, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I said highest ‘domestic’ murder rate per capita but you are welcome to misconstrue my wording if it makes you feel better. That does not alter the fact that you changed my meaning to create an objectionable post. Don't you realize how much that damages your credibility?
I am European and use the word domestic in the manner of Europeans, to mean home, the household. What you consider the word to mean I really don’t know.
Almost 50% of armed crime involves those military issue guns.
The overall gun crime rate in Switzerland has declined dramatically since the early 1990s
I love seeing two anti-theists arguing with each other.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#527719 Aug 18, 2012
Gray_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a break, for you to mention white slaves is asinine. The only whites in slavery were actually indentured servants, and that was pre-African slavery.
Why is it asinine? Because it was a long time ago? I agree, some people get hung up on stuff that has nothing to do with them.*hint, hint*

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#527720 Aug 18, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>No- you are NOT for equal rights where homosexuals are concerned- that's for sure.
You're damn right. A gender, a skin color is what a person IS. A sexual preference is what a person DOES. Being homosexual doen't award them extra rights.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#527721 Aug 18, 2012
Gray_Box wrote:
<quoted text>You are right adn he can not prove that he locves his son or his mom.
It is not frustrating to me, because they are the ones requiring the proof. I look at this way, if they don't believe in God or they can't prove that their mom loves them, it is there issue and there's only.
If they ask for proof, and are not willing to accept the terms, that is still there problem. I heard an agnostic say this, they don't want to believe, because they do not want to.
I completely agree.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#527722 Aug 18, 2012
Gray_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Let me tell you this one thing, when you bring up white slaves, it is like a German saying that there were Germans imprisoned during the Holocaust of the Jews. Also, Germany was penalized for 50 years due to the Holocaust, which means that all under the age of 50 suffered. So, why shouldn't Americans pay the price for what Americans do. We are not willing to give back this land or ecen honor the payment agreement.
Pay what price for what we do? What do current Americans do that is so bad that there should be "a price to pay"?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#527723 Aug 18, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you front your bible as indisputable.
Who wrote it?
Few biblical books are regarded by scholars as the product of a single individual.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#527724 Aug 18, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>And btw, before you respond by telling me that people can't help what color they are born but that being gay is not how one is born, the jury is still out on that but that isn't even the point.
You say you are all for equal rights so I assume that includes those who aren't of the same religion as you are or who don't believe in the god you do.
Well, those people weren't born that way- meaning one can always change their religious beliefs or religious affiliation.
So if you are "all for equal rights" for those who believe differently than you do, logic dictates that would include homosexuals.
But as you have stated, you will vote against the legal right for gay marriage every chance you get, so again- you are not "all for equal rights".
dumdum. "equal rights" & "special rights" are different things.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#527725 Aug 18, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're damn right. A gender, a skin color is what a person IS. A sexual preference is what a person DOES. Being homosexual doen't award them extra rights.
How very naive of you. Sex drive is controlled by many factors, so it is part of who you are. Homosexuals are not seeking extra rights, they just want equal rights and religious nutjobs are denying them equality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 min RADEKT 260,291
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min truth 545,266
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Dave Nelson 228,637
YEN&#304;KÖY Altus Servisi ('( 299 I5 34 )') Al... 15 min halentfr 1
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 16 min RiccardoFire 36,929
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 20 min RiccardoFire 95,777
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 20 min Wordsworth 4,611
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 22 min NEWS-FLASH 174,213
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr lil whispers 601,452

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE