jay pettitt on 8/4/2008 at 23:56
Not me Bennsiewennsie
Quote Posted by catbarf
Entertainment or possibly increased efficiency in the specific example.
...not to mention maths.
Did you really mean to say that Benn?
Ben Gunn on 9/4/2008 at 00:16
Well, officialy Im not talking to you- not untill you acknowledge that Im pawning you in every single step of the way and that Im your god and you have no other god but me.
But off the record I may wonder what happened to your accute sarcasm detector.
catbarf on 9/4/2008 at 01:34
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Sorry, catbarf, I would gladly continue this discussion but your reply is wrong on so many levels I wouldnt know where to start.
Please do.
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Out of curiosity, is there anyone else here who thinks that art is science? :erg:
If it's a design deliberately provoking the viewer, postulating an idea, or questioning some aspect of our surroundings, then why not? If it's a collection of oils in the shape of a fruit on a wall that does nothing but look pretty, then no.
And the entire point is moot regardless. Even if science does hold the answers to everything, the idea that that makes art and music worthless is simply bizarre. A non sequitur. There is no connection.
Pyrian on 9/4/2008 at 01:54
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
You wanna know what's really weird? We humans may one day create some facsimile of life through robotics and AI that will more than likely realize our imperfections better than we ever could and subsequently disown us.
The Humanoids, Terminator, Matrix, heck, the new Cylons...
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Well it does occur to me, can science explain the all workings of our mind when it is itself a construct of our minds?
Human knowledge has long since surpassed the ability of any given human to know. It seems reasonably likely to me that no given human can conceivably fully understand their own psychology. But even that still leaves a lot of room for both individual and amassed knowledge that could conceivably one day grasp the totality of the human brain, in general.
Tocky on 9/4/2008 at 02:22
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Your first apparent mistake is that he wasn't talking about the
appearance of life- which is, I guess, very probable given an infinite time- but about their
continous existance which is highly unprobable in the light of the second law of thermo-dynamics.
Given infinite time the continuous existence of life is zero alright. Once the last sun has burned out and expanding dark matter pushed everthing unfathomable distances apart will it matter what we believed or knew? How do you suppose our AI will fare given infiite time, limited resources, and brittle cold? What does physics say about ultimate stasis given infinity? Really. I don't know. I'm a big brick to the head of fun, I ams.
Pyrian on 9/4/2008 at 03:21
Right, life makes no demands of the 2nd law of thermodynamics except that it continue.
d0om on 9/4/2008 at 10:10
Life is powered by the second law, when we stop being a little entropy-increasing flame we die.
Life increases the entropy of the universe, and self-reproducing life increases it by an ever-increasing amount.
The purpose of life is to bring about the entropic death of the universe faster by consuming its resources.
Ben Gunn on 9/4/2008 at 10:28
jay and cat. That post's aim was to show the absurdity of the logical conclusions and implications of the premise that science holds the key to everything. What's known in fancy latin reductio ad absurdum (or something like that), and it was clearly stated here-
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Another way to show the absurdity of this view:
So I really dont know why you were busting your heads over its meaning.
Now I have 2 days full of that worky worky stuff mentioned earlier so Ill get back to you later, cat.
jay pettitt on 9/4/2008 at 15:12
Oh. So it wasn't the old straw-man one-two then?
