Comments by epeeist

1501. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140896 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 4:18 am

Comment #140710 by Titchfield

Someone suggested that Hitchens would make a great Lord and whilst I agree that would have been true 10 years ago he is now, sadly, a Yank. As such I'm pretty sure he can't be given the right to sit in the House of Lords and quite right too.

Can you say "Conrad Black". He changed nationality to become Lord Black.

Of course he may lose his peerage either by a specific act of parliament, or more generally if the bill to remove the peerage from those convicted of criminal charges goes through.

1502. Fleabytes

Comment #140895 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 4:13 am

Comment #140891 by Verylee

Maybe some get off on the titillation of dialogue with and baiting the devil's playmates, and having the wicked pleasure of "knowing" that we are all going to roast in hell!

The other thing I wonder is how distinct they are.

There are obviously a fair number of individuals, wee flea being one of them, Dianelos, Mark Taunton being others.

But we also have the followers, the definite ones being those who were directed here by Vox Day, the ones who just might be, like mlearnedfriend and Whatthe and the emissaries like devolved from Liberty "University".

And finally we have the sock puppets, wooter and wipeout being the latest ones.

1503. Fleabytes

Comment #140890 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 3:51 am

Comment #140883 by Steve Zara

Does anyone have any ideas about the motivations of so many of the theists who post here?

Motivations, not particularly.

Picking up on a point that Verylee makes. The non-theists who post here seem to have a much wider background than the theists and seem to have come to atheism with the assistance of that background (this should be suitably qualified, it won't be true of everybody).

The theists display a much narrower background with the theism taking priority over everything else.

The fact that we bring in physics, biology (must get some chemistry in here somehow), philosophy of all kinds, history, archaeology, mythology to the closed questions that they raise must cause all sorts of problems to them.

1504. Fleabytes

Comment #140870 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 12:14 am

Comment #140643 by whatthe..?!

Everything which HAS A BEGINNING has a cause'. Human consciousness must have been caused and that cause must have been sufficient to account for it. To argue that mind/consciousness originated from non-mind/consciouness is the height of absurdity and demonstrates the idiocy of materialism.

Hey, first mrlearnedfriend turns up again and then you follow shortly after, its like old home week.

A few (dozen?) pages back I posted a set of lemmas which MPhil obligingly made more robust. They are probably appropriate here.

Firstly, causality gets significantly strange once you get down to quantum levels. I am not sure that one can actually claim that every thing has a cause once you get down there. And given that the energy balance of the universe seems to be zero then it would be possible for it to come into existence purely because of quantum fluctuations.

And this is assuming a single, finite universe. We simply don't have the evidence to declare that this is the case, nor do we have the evidence to say whether any larger structure is finite or not.

So your claim for universal quantification on your statement is dubious.

Secondly, even if there was a first cause and the universe was created it doesn't follow from your argument that the creator was an omni-maximal deity. Why not some completely impersonal force?

Thirdly, even if the creator was an omni-maximal being you haven't established that this being is theistic, why couldn't it have been deistic?

Fourthly, even if this creator is theistic you haven't established that it is the the particular deity of an iron age tribe from a small area of a small planet orbiting one particular star in one particular galaxy in a universe that contains at least 150 billion others.

1505. Fleabytes

Comment #140425 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comment #140416 by Paula Kirby

Imagine a secondhand car dealer: "Just buy it, guv'nor, then you'll see that the fact it's a rusty old heap of junk just isn't a problem."

Careful - wee flea/clearthinker questioned my rationality for saying something similar.

Actually I claimed that religion was a pyramid selling scheme.

1506. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140381 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 8:23 am

Comment #140354 by phasmagigas

The parents who lose their kids at very early age will be rewarded in paradise to be together with their kids forever.
but thats a given irrespective of when a parent or kid dies in relation to each other right??

And assuming one of them doesn't do anything that will significantly piss off the said deity so that one of the goes to the nice place and the other gets an eternity of torture.

And assuming that the you have prayed to the correct god and that said god has actually gone to the bother of creating a heaven.

1507. Fleabytes

Comment #140359 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #140356 by Paula Kirby

I agree, Dr Benway, I soooooo agree. But you'll be familiar with the theists' response, which is that it isn't appropriate to demand natural evidence for supernatural claims. How do you respond to that one?

I would accept that, but only so long as their goddess (why do we always assume the this being is male?) is completely supernatural.

As soon as she starts messing with the natural then we need the natural evidence.

1508. Fleabytes

Comment #140350 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 7:21 am

1] It's Unity - despite being written by 40 authors there is a uniform message given throughout. 'It is not a superficial unity, but a profound unity. On the surface we often find discrepancy and disagreement, but, as we study, the apparent discrepancy and disagreement disappear, and the deep underlying unity appears. The more deeply we study, the more complete do we find the unity to be.' R.A. Torrey. There are different facets of this unity - structural, didactic, historical, prophetic and spiritual.

All holy books aim for unity, they have a cult to sell.

And one could claim that the Iliad and the Kalevala have much more unity than the bible, which seems to have been cobbled together from lots of different sources across the whole of the middle East.

2] it's self-proclaimed authority - obviously something taken on trust but if your friend says that he is a musician many times then if you tend to trust that he is telling the truth (especially if he demonstrates this by playing something - see later points).

It has authority over those that give it authority, for the myriads of Buddhists, Hindus, followers of the Great Spirit and atheists it has no authority at all.

3] it's endorsement by Jesus - Christian's are followers of Jesus on several levels (because of what he said, what he did and who he claims he was). There are measurable elements in these ï¿½quot; IE was what he said bonkers or profound? Was what he did verifiable from other sources? Was who he claims to be backed up by what people said happened? Whilst I may be sceptical of miracles, how many witnesses do I need to make me think that there may be something in this. There seems to be a double-standard operating here, we accept a different level of contemporary writings for other historical figures that we do for Jesus. So, people can say 'He didn't exist' when, if they used the same criteria for other historical figures, they would also have to exclude, well, most historical figures! I am aware that we look more sceptically on evidence provided by religious people but you have to believe in a high level of wishful thinking to discount all narrative accounts.

Who? This whole point is predicated on the existence of a figure for whom we only have documents written decades after he supposedly died. Even then the majority of these were from followers of his cult and can hardly be considered as neutral.

Consilience doesn't seem to be a word that most theists seem to know (especially those of the YEC kind, not that I am accusing you of being such). The reason that other historical figures are accepted is that there are multiple, independent sources of information about them.

4] Fulfilled Prophecy - this is at least mainly measurable. Yes, there are some ambiguous statements amongst the many claimed prophecies but there are enough to suggest that the writer had inside knowledge. Some have tried to overcome these by saying that the prophecy was written after the event but so far these have been paradigm-driven rather than evidence-based. Of the 300 or so prophecies that relate to the Messiah you may find some unconvincing ï¿½quot; but all of them?

We had a long thread on this from Mark Taunton, someone who really knew his bible extremely well. In the end he came down to a single prophecy which, due to some excellent work by J.C. Samuelson, he was unable to show was fulfilled.

Anyway, you are claiming the truth of prophecy. Therefore the burden is on you to a) show they were absolutely and accurately fulfilled b) the prophecy was actually foretold before the event. Note that claims such as "it will rain next Wednesday" don't count, what we want is "next Wednesday at 1234 UTC at N53:34:41, W2:32:23 there will be 3.5mm of rain".

5] It's Archaeology - that the events and people in scripture have been found to be more accurate as archaeology progresses. Many of you at this point will jump up and down on your favourite archaeological discrepancy (EG walls of Jericho) but look with a longer historical perspective ï¿½quot; there have been many claims of biblical inaccuracy as regards to extra-biblical sources but many of the seemingly intractable ones (EG Governorship of Quirinius) can be explained as more evidence comes to light.

Some of it is true, some if it is false. You obviously can't draw a general inference from this. And even if the archaelogy is correct, it doesn't mean to say that the whole religious edifice is true.

And anyway, both Greece and Egypt have better archaeological artifacts with much better historicity.

6] It's superiority of concept - that the philosophy / ideas in the Bible are better than other groups of concepts found in other writings. This is not measurable except in the sense of whether these ideas hang together as an entity and whether they can provide realistic answers to social problems.

Got agree with MPhil here - this is grotesque.

By the time that Jesus was about we already had the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. We also had Confucious and the Buddha. To claim superiority on behalf of the theism of Semitic tribe is a joke.

7] It's ability - that when people read the text of the Bible it changes them profoundly. In a way that other collections of writings do not. This could be claimed of any coherent belief system, of course, but the staying power of those influenced by the Bible's concepts, historically speaking, is exceptional. EG Marx's writings have had a profound effect on people but the staying power of those changed lives can be measured in only about a hundred years.

Read the Illiad? Nichomachean Ethics? The Symposium? Maharabata (or something like the Bhagavad Gita if you haven't read it all)? The Annalects?

Two things - all of the above have been around as long as the bible. All of them have had as much influence as the bible (in fact both Plato and Aristotle have at least as much influence on Christianity as bible, do some reading on the Augistine and the neo-Platonists and Aristotle and the scholastics).

1509. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140295 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 5:39 am

Comment #140284 by Paula Kirby

But there comes a point where mild and polite are not enough: some attitudes are SO disgusting that we SHOULD shout about them and draw attention to them in the strongest possible terms.

Not just wooter - can we say "dead baby".

Smug, sanctimonious, convinced of their own moral superiority and the lack of ethics of anyone else who doesn't follow their cult.

Just been listening to R4 lunchtime news (great being a homeworker) and a woman saying that we need a bioethics commission (agreed) and that it should include representatives from faith groups. Why is it assumed that they have cornered the market on morality and that any function that requires ethical decisions to be made should include them?

EDIT: And she also effectively said that scientists would do anything if they thought they could get away with it.

1510. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140257 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 4:37 am

Wooter - there are people on this site who can be rude, there are others who use invective where perhaps they shouldn't.

Others, like Philip, are incredibly polite and pleasant.

To make Philip angry you really have to post something that is significantly obnoxious. I hope you are proud of yourself.

1511. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140238 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 4:16 am

Comment #140227 by Steve Zara

I hope it was not needed too much. I have clearly demonstrated in recent times an ability to put my foot in my mouth via a keyboard (if you see what I mean), but underneath it all, I mean well.

Marked PBSK when our help desk closes incidents.

1512. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140186 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 3:30 am

Comment #140177 by Philip1978

I am about to hand him a piece of my mind and I was wondering if there were any objections, I warn you now, there may be swearing involved! :)

Free Smiley Face Courtesy of www.FreeSmileys.org

1513. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140166 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 3:00 am

Comment #140164 by Vaal

Really? Did you say anything to him about it? I would have been enraged if a witchdoctor had hijacked my funeral like that. It makes you almost wish that you could return as "Carrie" did, and grab his foot from the grave!

No, largely because of the presence of a frail grandmother and a grieving and pious aunt.

1514. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140163 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 2:56 am

Comment #140161 by irate_atheist

Wooter, you are - and I use the word advisedly - a cunt.

Only second class. For a first class cunt you would have to nominate god.

1515. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140153 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 2:34 am

Comment #139880 by wooter

How old is the earth?
To science, 4.4 billion years old
To ET: figures fail to express. Not enough time Not enough time.

You didn't answer the question. You were asked

How old do you think the earth is?

1516. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140140 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 2:13 am

Comment #140136 by bamboospitfire

For those who believe that the UK is anachronistic, our systems may occasionally appear dated because we have history going back more than 300 years.

Indeed, some of us live in houses that were around before certain countries declared their independence.

It has to be done stepwise, to its credit this government started the process of Lords reform. Like many other things though it bottled out, either through lack of interest, because it became apparent it was difficult, or because the Daily Mail objected (multiple-choice).

Hopefully at some point this will be taken up again and we will get a proper second chamber.

1517. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140122 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 1:34 am

Comment #139724 by bamafreethinker

My parents are just too old (75 and 79) to think about things like this and I don't think their heart could handle knowing that I'm not a believer. I stay in the closet to protect them from the stress I suppose.

Commendable, and it would be fine if it worked both ways.

My father's family are Catholics, but my father was a staunch Marxist of the Trotskyist persuasion. When he died we had a Catholic funeral, purely for the benefit of the family, it wasn't something he would have wanted.

It didn't stop the priest at the funeral attacking the idea of Communism and claiming that my father had come back to the fold.

1518. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140095 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 12:54 am

FWIW - there is an apocryphal story in the IT industry.

Techie in a call centre gets a phone call from a guy who claims his monitor isn't working. He goes through all the possibilities, is it plugged in, is it connected to the computer, is it switched on. The caller responds positively to everything.

Finally he asks the caller what model the monitor is. Caller says "I can't tell, all the lights in the building are out."

At which point the techie responds "Sir, do you still have all the packaging for your machine?".

"Yes," says the caller.

"Well sir, I advise you to take your computer, repackage it and send it back to the vendor."

"Why should I do that?" says the caller.

"Because you are too stupid to own a computer." says the techie.

Now I am not trying to label anyone on this particular thread, no sir, absolutely not.

1519. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139839 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Comment #139577 by Tyler Durden

fides is thinking "But God's law trumps any man-made law, Williams speaks for God, so Williams should always get his way!"

He is going to be fairly pissed off by the decision of the HofL to repeal the blasphemy laws.

Looks like the Lords Spiritual didn't quite get their way on this.

1520. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139575 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 6:05 am

Comment #139573 by fides_et_ratio

So the Archbishop discussing religious law being incorporated in civil law, which has some basis in religious law, is as relevant as the president of the NFU discussing the same. I disagree.

But that isn't what I said is it?

Civil and criminal law in the UK is enacted by elected representatives (and unfortunately a non-elected second house). Therefore those in a proper position of authority are members of parliament.

The AoC is quite at liberty to make comments on the role of religious law and whether it should be incorporated into common law. What he is not in, and nor should he be in, is in a position of authority to enact those laws.

1521. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139570 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #139562 by fides_et_ratio

And when he speaks on matters affecting inter-faith dialogue such as the ones mentioned in the programme, his views carry more weight than the president of the NUF?

If he wants to discuss how to hold more happy clappy sessions with Catholics or Muslims, then fine. That is his area and he speaks with proper authority.

If he is discussing whether religious law should be incorporated into civil law then granting him any special privileges would be to commit a "truth by authority" error.

The AofC is in exactly the same position as anyone else, he has no claim to universal expertise.

1522. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139546 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 4:06 am

Comment #139539 by wooter

If we go to a department store and just take look at the electronics department and see all kinds of equipment, tv, cd players, Mp3 phones, toasters etc,
And you just claim that

Why do you assume that the appearance of these equipment means that there really is a designer? They just came out by the mutation of iron

You have had the answer to this many times before.

Please answer the question

How old is the earth?

Tell us how many years old you think it is.

We have answered many if not all of your questions. It is your turn to answer ours and to provide some evidence for that answer.

1523. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139532 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #139530 by Corylus

Re Wooter - I don't think any of you are going to convince about evolution, but you do seem to be improving his English.

The vocabulary and grammar seem to have improved, but the content is still of the "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" type.

1524. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139505 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 2:23 am

Wooter - now that you are here.

Jon_sociologist has answered lots of your questions in a very polite way. Now it is your turn:

How old is the earth?

Please answer the question in the format "The earth is x years old." Replace the x by your answer. Please do not respond with another question, such as "how old do you think it is?"

1525. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139497 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 2:00 am

Strange isn't it, we seem to have the two extremes here, typified by Dylan Thomas in "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night", and by Robert Louis Stevenson in "Requiem"

1526. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139485 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 1:11 am

Comment #139286 by Duff

I think we must grant fides et ratio one thing. The pope, the archbishop and the various and sundry other pastors, bishops, elders, etc. do represent a very large segment of the people.

I don't think we need to grant this.

The religious officials are the leaders of particular faith groups, but as has been pointed out by hungarianelephant they claim to represent god.

So, freedom of speech by all means. But when the AofC makes a speech on, say, civil and criminal law then we may pay some attention to it in the same way as we do from someone in the National Farmers Union. They carry the same weight of authority.

1527. Fleabytes

Comment #139480 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 12:36 am

Comment #139308 by Bonzai

You cannot "reduce" biology to physics unless you accept biology as a valid level to begin with. What you need for the "reduction" is not a "complete language",--whatever hell it means,--but a way to connect the two levels, that is a mapping problem.

Bonzai - not picking on you, simply that you were the first to mention the need for a mapping.

There have been some fairly throwaway comments about such a mapping which I think need addressing.

It is fairly obvious that a mapping from biology to the underlying physics needs to be injective. If we wish to recover the higher level information from the layers underneath then the mapping needs to be bijective.

This obviously applies to MPhil's "The point about the complete language was that you cannot map biology on physics unless your language of physics includes the means to provide a description onto which the biological descriptions can be mapped."

1528. Fleabytes

Comment #139296 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Comment #139292 by Bonzai

Phenomenon precedes theorization.

I'm not sure how you mean this. What generally precedes theorisation is a problem, that problem may be because of inconsistency between current theory and new data, or it may be that it is something that we now see is a problem which we never thought of before.

It is like saying cognitive science is physics, biology is physics, in fact everything is "identical" to physics because what is there beneath physics?

But "In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting." ;-)

1529. Fleabytes

Comment #139264 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Comment #139262 by _J_

(On the question of how the FCOS forum works: we may accuse David Robertson of various things, but rampant censorship ought not to be one of them.

Hi _J_ nice to here from you again.

For what it is worth, it looks as though the post that went missing (and I say it no more strongly than that) looks as though it exposes some differences between DAR's description of his enrolment here as "clearthinker" and the admins spotting said enrolment and being informed of the probable identity of "clearthinker".

1530. Fleabytes

Comment #139261 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Comment #139256 by Steve Zara

(Well, what else did you expect from me, huh?)

Music!

Both together - Emma Kirkby, one woman I really do have the hots for (fortunately my wife doesn't read the content on this site).

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Stands-Still/dp/B000002ZIN

1531. Fleabytes

Comment #139246 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 11:16 am

Comment #139243 by Richard Morgan

Like Bach's "Art of Fugue" it seems to go on for ever, but the same theme keeps recurring and it is never boring.

Just so long as it doesn't end for the same reason as the "Art of Fugue" did...

1532. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139239 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 11:05 am

Just for wooter's benefit.

If god created the universe in 4004BC, then lots of things we thought we knew are wrong. Evolution would be one example, Sumerian literature written on stone tablets would be another, the varves in lake Suigetsu would be another. In which case we obviously can't rely on our senses.

The question is, can god rely on his? How does he know he wasn't created in 4005BC?

1533. Fleabytes

Comment #139237 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #139234 by Steve Zara

I have also realised the irony of talking about different brains processing information in different ways on a thread in which atheists are attempting (without much success it seems) to communicate with a theist, and in which there has been so much misunderstanding over words.

But this is back to language again.

The paper is essentially about recognising bitmaps, we may assign some meaning to these but I suspect this is observer neutral.

One is obviously doing more interpretation when it comes to language.

How about an intermediate experiment - music recognition. More structured than a picture, less structured than natural language. Alternatively, something that requires additional interpretation such as short poems or mathematical proofs.

1534. Fleabytes

Comment #139232 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 10:47 am

Comment #139037 by Steve Zara

Is it reasonable to assume that different brains process information in the same way?

In general terms, I guess it is, because we would not be able to relate to each other at all if not, but in terms of specifics, perhaps not. There are major differences between cultures.

Serendipity - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/05/healthandwellbeing

1535. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139179 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 9:00 am

Wooter - since you seem to be having problems answering Jon_sociologist's questions how about reducing it to answering one simple question from the Reverend:

What date did god create everything?

And to add a little addendum of my own

What evidence do you have for this?

1536. Fleabytes

Comment #139104 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 6:21 am

Comment #139054 by clodhopper

You see we make a division between the experiencer and the experienced which may be entirely false. Many many years ago I had an 'experience' where this division completely dissapeared and no, I was not on drugs. Actually I was picking runner beans in a market garden (holiday job). The experience was quite extraordinary and has not been repeated. There just was NO division between 'me', the beans, the bees on the flowers, the wind blowing through them, that person on the bike over there, the sunshine, the whole damn universe. My brain had also stopped jabbering and was completely silent, just looking on while this took place.

Sounds like a Maslow "Peak Experience".

1537. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139090 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #139079 by fides_et_ratio

I think you've misread my post.

I don't believe I have.

I disagree with you on your second point as I think the figures you've mentioned have a valuable part to play.

I didn't say they hadn't, what I did intimate was that they should not be able to decide on policy, this should be down to elected representatives.

(automatic deference isn't a phrase I've used nor one I agree with)

Agreed you didn't use it.

But what you are committing is the democratic fallacy. The opinions of the Archbishop or Chief Rabbi are no more valuable than the head of the CBI when it comes to talking about AIDS for example and both sets of opinions would be of significantly less value than that of the Chief Medical Officer. The same is true of virtually every other topic on which a church official opines apart from the rituals of their particular faith.

1538. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #139076 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #138840 by Affront

If only Islam could take on board the idea of 'having a sense of humour' but I guess that we'll have to wait a few more centuries for that.

OK, for the benefit of our UK readers there was evidence for deviation and repetition in the article, but what about hesititation?

1539. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139067 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #139055 by fides_et_ratio

In an effective democracy power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a political elite to the extent that it excludes any other voice.

You are confusing two issues here:

The UK is a representative democracy. Those who make the decisions should be the people we have elected.
There should be no restrictions on any one voicing their views, whether they are Christian, atheist, businessman or union leader. However, none of these people should be granted any automatic deference purely because of their position.

Personally, I have fairly strong views about the role of the House of Lords and undue influence on the legislative process by particular groups of people but I don't these are appropriate for me to voice here.

1540. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139044 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 4:27 am

Comment #138205 by Geoff

Stat a new thread on here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=46

You'll be made to feel very welcome.

You sent him there ;-)

Just one word, Calilasseia. Be afraid, be very afraid.

1541. Fleabytes

Comment #139031 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 3:53 am

Comment #139007 by Steve Zara

For computers, it doesn't. The company Sun Microsystems has a slogan: "the network IS the computer".

What interests me is what it would feel like to have some kind of "network" between two brains.

(Being able to share what it is like to have a "revelatory experience" would be useful)

But there is (now) a common, low level protocol that allows one machine to communicate with another. And of course it still doesn't necessarily work, what if I am talking telnet and you are talking ssh? Or you are ASCII and I am UTF-16? What if my machine is a 64 bit SPARC and your machine is a 32 bit i386?

Is it reasonable to assume that different brains process information in the same way? Would it be reasonable if we were discussing visual or olfactory information, but not auditory information that included language if the sender and receiver had different primary languages, or different language groups (e.g. a Romance language and Chinese).

What kind of protocol could we imagine that would allow interchange of information between two brains?

1542. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138972 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 2:03 am

Comment #138954 by wipeout

I ain't no willing to intervine any stupid argument on this web page, but i am really tempted when i see twisted minds or mindsets obsessed with sex and related swearing- they think this is an ace card to use against anybody who are against them, like me or schemezers or kringski or wooter guy. If these are scientific answers, then, I know nothing about science.

If wooter wanted to show how much better he is than us he would ignore all the expletives and simply answer the questions jon_sociologist posted and that I reframed to make them easier to answer point by point.

That is all that is wanted. We don't want to know that "god did this" and "god did that". What we want to know is how and when he did it with some evidence that substantiates the claims.

1543. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #138554 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 2:04 pm

It might be dead, but it certainly doesn't want to lie down - http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2008/03/will-we-be-hear.html

1544. Fleabytes

Comment #138252 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 5:26 am

Comment #138226 by Peacebeuponme

- I don't think they are liars unless they state the opposite though - you can't lie by being silent.

You obviously weren't brought up a Catholic - sins of commission and sins of omission.

1545. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138206 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #138191 by wooter

You can talk to Darwin and Bertrand Russell who were looking for amino acids in the soup and when you find it, it is your turn again. By the way thank you for your very descriptive language of yourself and this web page features. Way to go. You are almost there to prove that E.T is not fact but only a vocabulary of foul language. By the way you live along with Mr Dawkins?

Wooter - you have asked questions, you have been given answers (at least some by a Ph.D. and post-doctorate level biologist). Now it is your turn. Please answer the questions in my reformulation of jon_socialist's post. You can find it here.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2299,The-Salamanders-Tale,Richard-Dawkins-RodHullIAmHim,page4#136363

1546. Fleabytes

Comment #138127 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 1:09 am

Comment #138121 by LorienRyan

If you could extend it to include all the 'omni...'s' and make it succinct and catchy I'd be for it.

EDIT: or do a series, one for each 'omni'.

I would be for the latter. Keep each separate and focused, and do a follow up article tying the whole thing together at the end.

It would be too easy for detractors to lead discussion up side-shoots if you try to make too many points in a single article.

1547. Fleabytes

Comment #138124 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 1:05 am

Comment #138117 by MPhil

Say, what would you (directed at all) think of me combining, refining an expanding my posts on The impossibility of omnipotence

I for one would like to see this.

I think the time is coming where we can actually generate this kind of article internally, rather than needing to reference articles from elsewhere.

I don't mean to sound parochial, anything that is grist to the mill is welcome. But there is sufficient talent on the site to generate our own material. A means of collaboration (wiki?) might be useful to get things into shape initially.

1548. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138108 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 12:26 am

Comment #137804 by al-rawandi

2) Please do comment on the Constitution. I hope you, unlike retarded Jay, have actually read portions of the Bill of Rights. So do contribute...

I wouldn't dream of make a comment on the contents, I don't know enough about it.

The only thing I have wondered is whether the process for change is too rigid. You obviously don't want to make it too easy to change, but if it is overly difficult then is there a chance of it becoming irrelevant? Also, is there a chance of America becoming a "people of the book" in the same way some religiously based states are?

As for spelling - I use Firefox with the spell checker switched on. Works for me on Linux, I don't know whether this is possible for those of you running inferior operating systems.

Oh and Goldy - long ago I had to write an essay (like the rest of the group I was in) on chirality in molecular structures. I spelt "asymmetry" wrongly every time. Lecturer knocked a mark off for every misspelling. I, like many others in my class, got a negative mark.

1549. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137795 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #137739 by Diacanu

Fighting a tiger, that might mean something, y'know?

But even then, it's a critter with claws versus a guy with a gun.

Tiger doesn't have much chance really.

How about hunting boar the way they did in medieval times, with a boar spear. Even with the cross-bar on it you stood a good change of being gored if you didn't use it properly. That should add a bit more adrenaline.

Oh, and can I comment on the Constitution? Please, please, I'm English so you know I can add something relevant.

1550. Fleabytes

Comment #137786 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 1:28 pm

2946. Comment #137777 by clodhopper