Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:19pm PT
|
This is just what all the modern science and engineering disciplines say we are. I've embraced it, this new worldview. Have you?
I mentioned this on another thread and WBraun wrote:
"No you're the robot. A human being is originally free from all material entanglement."
So the question is, What do we do about all the scientific illiteracy in the world? How do we solve the scientific illiteracy problem?
Corn Spirit
"You are what you eat."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:23pm PT
|
I know you Dingus, I've read you.
With all due respect, you're a man of letters (literature),
you're a writer who writes well. But you're not a man of science and engineering.
Why are so many from the humanities side so disrespectful of science,
engineering and technology. Oh yeah, because they're scientifically illiterate.
I bet you didn't like Carl Sagan, either. Extra Credit: Any idea who Richard Dawkins is? or Sam Harris?
Natural Selection is the GREAT DESIGNER. Of us biotic ROBOTS.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:30pm PT
|
Yeah, I've got a chip on my shoulder this morning.
Once again I listened to some Evangelical speaking as a Republican. You see, I'd love to throw my hat to the Republican Party (yeah, the Party of Lincoln) because I'm for small government, fiscal responsibility. Yet it's got religion (ol time religious crap) all mixed up in it. How'd that happen? Anyways, enough.
"You are what you eat."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Men with a poor fund of knowledge mistake the bodily machinery to be the living being, but the fact is that the living being is the basis of the bodily machine.
The bodily machine is useless as soon as the living spark is away from it.
Take the operator/programmer, and creator out of the picture and the robot will not function.
Simple science.
|
|
Deemed Useless
Social climber
Ca.
|
|
Robot me, robot you.
First I see, then I do.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:33pm PT
|
So Brawny... you're one of those who believe we all have a ghost in the machine. Is that right? Well, that's so 1st through 19th century.
My prescription for ya: ADAPT!
Fewer ol time philosophy and religious books.
More science and engineering books.
I suppose you believe in a lifeafter (this one), too. Life is physics and chemistry and parts and wholes. We're comprised of 100 trillion cells-- constituted like that, how could you live outside your body machine. Think it through as you tap into your science and engineering education.
|
|
Cloudraker
Big Wall climber
BC
|
|
Why are so many from science, engineering and technology so disrespectful of the humanities side? Oh yeah, because they're ignorant of the human condition.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Somebody posted some interesting stats showing the ideologic backgrounds of scientists from various disciplines: overwhelmingly liberal. I haven't seen similar stats on those with theologic backgrounds, but I betcha I can guess.
To grow and develop knowledge & science requires a progressive, creative, curious mind. Definitely not core traits of conservatism.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Once again I listened to some Evangelical speaking as a Republican. You see, I'd love to throw my hat to the Republican Party (yeah, the Party of Lincoln) because I'm for small government, fiscal responsibility. Yet it's got religion (ol time religious crap) all mixed up in it. How'd that happen? Anyways, enough.
The republican party is the party of small government and fiscal responsibility????? hahahahaha.. here is your first mistake. Believing what they say, instead of what they do. Just look at the facts. Government has grown more in the last 50 years under republicans then under democrats.
And you call yourself a scientist. hahahahaha.. Good luck Mr Scientist who doesn't look at the facts.
the republican party is fiscally irresponsible. What do you call a group that spends more then it takes in? thats right, you got it. Irresponsible. You did notice that they lowered taxes on the wealthy while raising spending on war during the Bush/republican reign. Or do you just blame that on Bush? The first time this country has ever done that and it was done by the republicans.
When you start understanding what a fact is, then we might listen to you.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:46pm PT
|
Okay Cloudraker, I'll bite, use me as your sounding board, punching bag, whatever. How might one be disrespectful. Give us an example.
I'll start. If I merely say-- as part of how I think the world works for instance-- that the divinity of Jesus doctrine of the Christian Church is incorrect (bogus) is that disresectful (of the humanities)?
Speak up man, tell us what you think...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:49pm PT
|
Moosie-- HAA! I don't disagree with anything you said re: the Republicans. They're a total disappointment. But the Democratic Party is "the party of government."
And I didn't call myself a scientist. C'mon, let's tighten up our dialog here. I am a systems engineer.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Uh-oh, is this becoming another one of those 'weepin' jeebus onna cross' threads?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Hey
You're bringing religion into this.
Stick with science, dude.
My original statement had no religion in it.
"A human being is originally free from all material entanglement."
Thus we can see that you are a mental speculator projectionist ......
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
But the Democratic Party is "the party of government."
ah.. now I see your problem. You lack discernment. The republicans has said it for so long, that the dems are the party of government, that you believe it, even though the facts show otherwise. Yes we believe that government is capable of solving big problems, we also think they need to be restrained. You do remember Clinton pushing to balance the budget? eh.. I bet you never heard that before. Maybe you should broaden your source of info and stop listening to Rush or Oliely.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
|
Forget religions, then. Forget the bronze age stupidities institutionalized by religious institutions over the centuries. I'm for that.
You believe, Brawny, that there is a ghost in your machine, that there is a ghost in my machine, is that right? If so, I'm sayin that's ol'time philosophy. Adapt! Spend your time adapting to the new understandings of modernity, not fighting them.
Moosie- I'm on your side, bro, I'm trying to get along here. I'm a huge Clinton fan. What, are you a humanities grad and have a problem with my scientific view?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Werner, your original statement is a conjecture.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
|
Ed,
and why haven't you spoke up sooner? You're supposedly the scientist in residence here!! Give me some info. What's your stance on the life sciences side? I know you've heard of him, what do you make of Dawkins, is he too strident as some physicians, whoops, physicists, think?
"You are what you eat."
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
Dingus,
There is no one definition of robot which satisfies everyone, and many people have their own.[6] For example, Joseph Engelberger, a pioneer in industrial robotics, once remarked: "I can't define a robot, but I know one when I see one."[7] According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, a robot is "any automatically operated machine that replaces human effort, though it may not resemble human beings in appearance or perform functions in a humanlike manner".[8] Merriam-Webster describes a robot as a "machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being", or a "device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks", or a "mechanism guided by automatic controls".[9]
Maybe he's unsure how to answer your question.
Specify. :-)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:03pm PT
|
Ding, look up the thread. I answered already. But I'll answer again: The Great Designer (natural Selection) designed the robot. Read Dawkins. Carl Sagan did a pretty good job giving the answer, too.
PS Ding- I'm trying my best to keep religion out of it. But if you want to get around to God, I won't talk about theology unless you're willing to distinguish between Jehovah, Zeus, Amon-Re, Quezelcoatl, etc. Just sayin.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
you choose your battles... I don't usually start them... and the OP took the form of a "shoot 'em up" which isn't my style...
but Werner has taken a laconic tactic and I wanted to equal him...
conjecture, noun I meant in its mathematical sense: a proposition before it has been proved or disproved.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!