@AThousandYoung saidFlawed analogy. Bacterial disease was the necessity to develop a treatment.
That argument is flawed. A similar argument could be:
Before penicillin was invented, there was no bacterial disease.
1 edit
@moonbus saidYou wrote
Flawed analogy. Bacterial disease was the necessity to develop a treatment.
The earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered were unwalled. This strongly suggests that in the first age of agricultural plenty, no defenses against outside raiders were needed.
The earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered showed no evidence of penicillin use. This strongly suggests that in the first age of agricultural plenty, no defenses against bacterial disease were needed.
Likewise during the Black Death no defenses against bacterial disease was needed. How do we know? Because they didn't have penicillin.
Isn't that your argument? You know that there were no violent raiders because there were no walls?
@AThousandYoung saidPeople didn’t know about bacteria prior to the development of the microscope. The technological preconditions have to be met first. That should go without saying. The Mayans didn’t invent the bicycle either, because they hadn’t invented the wheel either. You have to crawl before you can run.
You wroteThe earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered were unwalled. This strongly suggests that in the first age of agricultural plenty, no defenses against outside raiders were needed.
The earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered showed no evidence of penicillin use. This strongly suggests that in the first age of ...[text shortened]...
Isn't that your argument? You know that there were no violent raiders because there were no walls?
@moonbus saidI'm glad that you now understand that the lack of walls did not indicate a lack of foreign raiders.
People didn’t know about bacteria prior to the development of the microscope. The technological preconditions have to be met first. That should go without saying. The Mayans didn’t invent the bicycle either, because they hadn’t invented the wheel either. You have to crawl before you can run.
@moonbus saidMayans had invented wheels by the way. They had wheeled toys. They never invented chariots because they didn't have horses.
People didn’t know about bacteria prior to the development of the microscope. The technological preconditions have to be met first. That should go without saying. The Mayans didn’t invent the bicycle either, because they hadn’t invented the wheel either. You have to crawl before you can run.
@Soothfast saidThis article seems to mirror much of what you're saying. This article also seems to say that, like many religions today, individual users have slightly different ideas about what it's about.
I've always assumed the droids in Star Wars actually do feel emotions. Which, you know, means they're a slave race. Very dark stuff, if you think about it too hard.
The Force in Star Wars is not a thing in real life so far as we know, but if I were to draw parallels, it would be with the powers attributed to certain Hindu gurus or yogis through advanced yogic practices ...[text shortened]... advanced yoga skills, and 24% Shintoist. Wait, I forgot about the warrior-monk-knight ingredient. 🤔
https://screenrant.com/yoda-empire-strikes-back-best-force-explanation/
I was looking at it in the same way with more nature-based religions, such as many tribal Native American animist or shamanistic viewpoints. Mainly being about a life-based force rather than something from a specific deity. All The Force is lacking is some kind of 'Great Spirit' idea. But this does bring it more in line with Buddhism, as you say.
@Sleepyguy saidBut what is REALLY interesting to ponder is that THIS THREAD is what Debates on RHP used to be like. 😆
No, not really.
You know this as well as I do.
@moonbus said"Confabulate" would be a better term. The engineers themselves don't know what they hell they're talking about. They play with a Promethean fire like a child playing with matches in an ammunition depot.
Yes, it is of course a figure of speech, but it accurately describes the phenomenon of seeing things which are not there. Except that robots do not see either -- that too is a figure of speech. Figures of speech save us the trouble of cumbersome circumlocutions such as 'AI-robots occasionally generate faulty data as an unintended consequence of programming imperatives.'
@AThousandYoung saidA little easier to build walls than invent microscopes and/or penicillin.
You wroteThe earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered were unwalled. This strongly suggests that in the first age of agricultural plenty, no defenses against outside raiders were needed.
The earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered showed no evidence of penicillin use. This strongly suggests that in the first age of ...[text shortened]...
Isn't that your argument? You know that there were no violent raiders because there were no walls?
@no1marauder saidYes, when it comes to mothers of invention gestation periods can vary drastically. We "need" a universal cure for cancer, but to date there is none because...it's complicated.
A little easier to build walls than invent microscopes and/or penicillin.
3 edits
@Soothfast saidOk, here we go. Finally someone who can explain it... 😆. This just popped up in my YouTube suggested videos. Huh!
The rods and cones that are the photoreceptors in the human eye basically just do what a photodiode does: receive photons --> transmit signals. In humans the signals run along the optic nerve to the visual cortex, while in a photodiode an electric current is generated in a circuit.
The gray area in between is, I think, the eyespots that many microbes have. Since I t ...[text shortened]... refore the stimuli their eyespots receive translate into some primitive kind of "seeing experience."
"The Evolution of Consciousness ~ PROFESSOR MICHAEL GRAZIANO"
Start around 5:25 to skip the prologue.
TL;DR: 'Consciousness' seems to occur when the brain (which is always building models of things) starts to build models of itself.
Suggests that the necessary brain structures to do this evolved at the time of early reptiles/birds/mammals. But why? Speculates a couple of reasons: better self-control. Connection to attention, e.g. what we chose to pay attention to vs. ignore. AND being able to look at other beings and say, "I wonder if he's going to do what I would do?" All have evolutionary advantages.
So if most reptiles/mammals/birds would then seem to have some form of consciousness, will AI robots evolve the same?
I have to watch to the end and see if he goes into it, but IFF we let robots start thinking about themselves and let them start building mental models of themselves, then they should achieve that thing we call 'consciousness.'
Buckle up. 😆
EDIT: Yep. He's using his theory to try to get AI to think about itself. Hoo boy....
EDIT: He also quotes my old stats professor from the UW-Madison, George Box!
@no1marauder saidI'm taking moonbus at his word that the earliest cities did not have walls. As I look into it I see that the earliest known city, Jericho, DID have walls.
A little easier to build walls than invent microscopes and/or penicillin.
In any case there are other ways of dealing with raiders. Sparta didn't have walls for example but it was not a peace loving matriarchy.
City walls require centralized planning and a lot of labor. It's not the sort of thing a hunter-gatherer band is capable of. It requires technological and social development. Violence is much easier than building walls around a city.
1 edit
@Soothfast saidYou'll hate my answer: "do we though?" 😆
We "need" a universal cure for cancer, but to date there is none because...it's complicated.
Cancer happens because our immune systems weaken. Why is that? Why do our bodies wear out?
I thin it is because immortal races have very little use for children - little space for them. Species don't evolve without children, mutation and recombination, and differential survival; and without evolution, species go extinct.
The design of humans as individuals is a perfect case of "planned obsolescence" - for good reason. 😆
@AThousandYoung saidSomeone must have written the history of walls - it would be kind of fascinating.
I'm taking moonbus at his word that the earliest cities did not have walls. As I look into it I see that the earliest known city, Jericho, DID have walls.
In any case there are other ways of dealing with raiders. Sparta didn't have walls for example but it was not a peace loving matriarchy.
City walls require centralized planning and a lot of labor. It's not t ...[text shortened]... es technological and social development. Violence is much easier than building walls around a city.
Herdsmen created the first walls, dragging thorns into a circle to protect themselves and their flocks at night from predators. Later they made stone corrals.
Farmers might put in fences around small gardens and orchards to protect from pests like deer and rabbits, but protecting larger fields means watching at night. You have to watch, since people could just climb a wall. An unmanned wall is only useful to keep out non-climbing pests.
A village or castle that takes in the populace would be the next level. Once walls exist, they allow much smaller groups of even non-professional soldiers to fend off larger groups of better armed, armored, and mounted raiders. Farmers retreat with their flocks and produce, waiting out the enemy who eventually gets hungry and rides off. q.v. the Seven Samurai - or Jamestown for that matter.
By the time we get to large walled cities, that is quite sophisticated society that can support that. Same principle though - walls boost the defense factor. Wall-building increased during the Hunnic invasions, the Viking invasions and in France during the 100 years war. It wasn't until cannon were able to easily defeat stone walls that they stopped being built.