Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by gd_edi


1. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195243 by gd_edi on June 18, 2008 at 1:10 am

Frankus1122, your link is from Miller's first appearance on the show.

2. What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #175692 by gd_edi on May 5, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Ah, so refreshing after that Expelled interview in the last post!

3. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175318 by gd_edi on May 5, 2008 at 8:25 am

Peacebeuponme,

No its not. Its a very interesting question.


It is interesting, I never said it wasn't. But unless you can test or otherwise observe it, it remains scientifically meaningless.

4. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175293 by gd_edi on May 5, 2008 at 6:08 am

MPhil, that's the second time I've had that book by Dennett recommended to me. I have to get my hands on it. I haven't read any philosophy at all which is probably why I have not too much idea about those concepts you talk about. Anyway I think I should read more before starting arguments!

If that is your position, it is merely a matter of semantics. Why not say "If it passes the Turing-test, it's conscious"? If it is indistinguishable from consciousness, it is consciousness.


Well what I was trying to point out was that it doesn't really mean anything for Richard to say that he suspects animals other than humans have subjective consciousness. Scientifically it's meaningless.

5. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175249 by gd_edi on May 5, 2008 at 2:20 am

That is a rather pedantic thing to say, especially given that Richard is clearly talking as a scientist here (i.e. the evidence for the existence of subjective consciousness in humans is overwhelming, in other animals less so) rather than as an abstract epistemologist (i.e. absolute knowledge of subjective phenomena in others is impossible). To take that as a serious argument against the existence of extra-personal human consciousness in the real world is much akin to the "well you can't disprove the existence of god" line we usually get.


I know I was being a bit pedantic, it's what I do!

It is really an assertion though. I don't think there is any evidence for subjective consciousness at all, not in the sense that we can actually test to see if it's there. And I'm not sure if we can even make a probability assessment like we can for god either, because a being with consciousness shouldn't appear any different to a robotic automaton with the same behaviour.

6. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175102 by gd_edi on May 4, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness? I would have thought that one's own self is the only entity we 'know' to have subjective consciousness, with all others being automata of various degrees of complexity.

7. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171012 by gd_edi on April 28, 2008 at 8:34 am

I agree with everyone. Stunning photo!

8. Out of the Blue

Comment #140852 by gd_edi on March 8, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Thanks for the recommendation crazy old man, I've been looking for something on the topic.

What I really want to know is how we expect to demonstrate that a machine (or for that matter another human) is conscious and self aware. I'm not convinced that we can test this yet, so I'm not sure how people are expecting to conclude whether or not a computer has achieved consciousness.

9. Out of the Blue

Comment #140668 by gd_edi on March 8, 2008 at 9:51 am

Pretty interesting, I can't wait to see what comes out of this, thought the more I think the more it seems to me that consciousness doesn't actually exist at all.

Taking the study to its logical end would mean you build a 'machine' that mimics the human brain and its human shell down to the smallest detail. Essentially what you have built is a human. It behaves strictly like a human and is indistinguishable. Is it conscious? If not, then can we conclude that an identical 'real' human is conscious? How can we demonstrate that a machine is conscious when we can't really do likewise for the billions of other 'conscious' beings on this planet?

Of course the flipside, here I am feeling as conscious as ever!

10. America: slouching towards the Enlightenment

Comment #135538 by gd_edi on February 29, 2008 at 4:36 am

The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion.


:-P

11. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124391 by gd_edi on February 9, 2008 at 10:17 am

haha touche

12. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124387 by gd_edi on February 9, 2008 at 10:02 am

disconnection--essentially severing contact with family members seen as hostile to the group.

A bit nasty maybe, but definitely better than stoning them to death.

13. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116689 by gd_edi on January 27, 2008 at 6:00 am

Indeed. Nothing to worry about.
Famous last words :-P



Hmm, I remember reading somewhere that the value given in the second vid for the size of the universe, 156 billion light years across, is actually incorrect. Not sure though.

14. The devilish church practice of exorcism

Comment #114074 by gd_edi on January 21, 2008 at 10:20 am

Makes my stomach turn. It really is insane that this kind of stuff still goes on in today's world.

15. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105617 by gd_edi on January 1, 2008 at 8:51 am

Hmmm, why are females so complicated? :P

16. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100550 by gd_edi on December 18, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Thats hilarious. People get offended way too easily.

17. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92125 by gd_edi on November 29, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Brilliant! Seriously outstanding interview!

18. The greatest debate

Comment #80339 by gd_edi on October 21, 2007 at 11:26 am

% Non religious in Australia. Taken from Australian census data. (No religion includes Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist and Rationalist):

Year%
19110.4
19210.5
19330.2
19470.3
19540.3
19610.4
19660.8
19716.7
19768.3
198110.8
198612.7
199112.9
199616.6
200115.5
200618.7


I dont think atheism needs any sort of 'movement', at least in Australia. 40 years since 1966 the non religious percntage has grown from less than 1% to nearly 20%, without an organized effort. In my opinion the trend is just the product of a half decent education system. I have no idea about similar figures in other countries though.

edit: fixed (cheers Quine)

19. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73023 by gd_edi on September 23, 2007 at 9:19 pm

has a background in chemistry, history and theology


Very interesting ordering there, considering his actual credentials:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~theo0038/biogbrooke.html

20. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64511 by gd_edi on August 20, 2007 at 10:40 am

Thats amazing! I had no idea that we were even close. Wonders never cease...

We can show that we are both profoundly ingenius and utterly meaningless :)

Hmmm, so my parents were lying when they said I was special...