1. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189962 by JD Cherry on June 8, 2008 at 12:07 am

I can honestly understand why people might react adversely to my stating my atheism.

I say "Well, no I don't believe in God", and they hear "The universe is pointless and death is the end. By the way you're a bloody fool and have been wasting your life and lying to your children".

Honestly, when I admit it to others I feel like I'm admitting that I've done something wrong, even though everyone I've told has been totally fine with it, at least outwardly.

2. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186654 by JD Cherry on May 30, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Who is the "us", the "we" that is to go into the rain forest and disrupt the way of life that these people have lived for millennia? The Brazilian government? The United Nations? A cadre of hardcore atheists that see every headline posted on their favourite biologist's website as an excuse to shit on the religious?

Why must something "be done" with these people? The imposition of liberalism or advanced technologies on these people would be every bit as traumatic as the introduction of evangelizing Christianity, you know. I say that they should be left alone, unless they feel like instigating non-violent contact with the outside world.

If some missionaries do decide to try to contact them, fine. Those fellows don't seem shy about using their weapons, and I won't shed any tears if there are a few mormon pincushions.

3. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180417 by JD Cherry on May 14, 2008 at 9:25 pm

"no observable consequences?" Is Pinker saying that Dennett considers subjective experience to be an epiphenomenon (the concept which Dennett abhors)?

4. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179251 by JD Cherry on May 13, 2008 at 1:12 am

What about defending the US government that employs Dick Cheney.

And I am sure there are a few federal employees somewhere that are pretty sick people. Like perhaps the soldiers that massacre people at Haditha.

There that's it, I cannot believe the American soldiers are fighting to defend a US government that employs soldiers who massacre women and children. There we go, that is about as useless as your comment. Didn't think I could do it, but I did.

5. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179243 by JD Cherry on May 13, 2008 at 12:52 am

I think that the singularity is nonsense. Do you really think that you will live FOREVER? A line on a 2D logarathmic graph is not enough to convince me of onrushing cyber-heaven.

6. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178689 by JD Cherry on May 11, 2008 at 11:37 pm

It absolutely sickens me that American soldiers are dying to protect a government that employs such a man as this.

Likewise for my Canadian fellows dying at an even greater proportional rate in Afghanistan, where a young journalist is threatened with execution by the government for simply pointing out the misogyny of Islam.

'Now, my lovely Rose is in her grave. But, God will make her father pay, either in this world ... or in the world after.'

If only there were a hell for such people.

7. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175556 by JD Cherry on May 5, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Mr Spinoza, could you give me a quick rundown on the drawbacks of utilitarianism?

8. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174935 by JD Cherry on May 3, 2008 at 10:22 pm

I seriously doubt you could have got a Neanderthal to throw its child from a building. :)

9. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174934 by JD Cherry on May 3, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Such simplemindedness seems to be the dominant mode of thought for a very large majority of Christians.

10. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174932 by JD Cherry on May 3, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Eventually you'll prove yourselves right, or more likely, you'll run out of children and your whole nation will be eraddicated in a single generation because of faith.

Oh please, I'm begging of you, can't you see? I'm on my hands and knees here begging for you to kill yourselves.

11. Sean Carroll on the Today Program

Comment #154187 by JD Cherry on April 2, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Sean B Carroll is good, but he's no Sean M. Carroll.

12. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #149910 by JD Cherry on March 26, 2008 at 10:26 am

Happy birthday, Richard!

I'd wish you a happy, restful retirement, but we all know you're not finished yet!

13. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146248 by JD Cherry on March 18, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Atheists are rational, logical, and even-handed.

14. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146237 by JD Cherry on March 18, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Here's what Clarke said on his 90th birthday back in December about how he'd like to be remembered.

I'm sometimes asked how I would like to be remembered. I've had a diverse career as a writer, underwater explorer, space promoter and science populariser. Of all these, I want to be remembered most as a writer - one who entertained readers, and, hopefully, stretched their imagination as well.

I find that another English writer -- who, coincidentally, also spent most of his life in the East -- has expressed it very well. So let me end with these words of Rudyard Kipling:

If I have given you delight
by aught that I have done.
Let me lie quiet in that night
which shall be yours anon;

And for the little, little span
the dead are borne in mind,
seek not to question other than,
the books I leave behind.

This is Arthur Clarke, saying Thank You and Goodbye from Colombo!

15. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145491 by JD Cherry on March 17, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I seriously hope that's a lame attempt at satire. If not, the good lord certainly didn't bless you with simple grammatical skills.

16. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145484 by JD Cherry on March 17, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Atheism cannot reach our hearts. A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief, cannot explain love, cannot sigh in happy wonder at life's endless surprises. He can only utter, "What is, is."

17. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141055 by JD Cherry on March 9, 2008 at 10:40 pm

I wonder if a student in a history or social studies class could hide under this bill while claiming that homosexuals and witches caused 9/11.

Also, doesn't this mean that a lazy student is GUARANTEED a pass if they simply use religion to get themselves out of learning the facts?

Maybe there should be some sort of a test to make sure of the legitimacy of the child's belief. Like for example, if the kid eats shellfish or trims the corners of his beard he can't take the bible TOO literally.

18. Out of the Blue

Comment #140779 by JD Cherry on March 8, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Avoiding shorthand would make your statements easier to understand, you know.

19. Out of the Blue

Comment #140702 by JD Cherry on March 8, 2008 at 11:49 am

Dr Benway - For this particular project, there won't be a programmer setting these sorts of algorithms. The goal is the simulation of a human brain, not the creation of a strong AI.

For some of the more extreme hopes of the Blue Brain project to come about, consciousness would have to spontaneously emerge from the wiring together of simulated neocortical columns.

20. Out of the Blue

Comment #140696 by JD Cherry on March 8, 2008 at 11:20 am

The geeky type often ignore the body and talk as though it is just the mind that counts. I don't even want to get started on the misanthropes who call themselves "transhumanists".

21. Out of the Blue

Comment #140685 by JD Cherry on March 8, 2008 at 10:42 am

Before anything resembling consciousness could arise from a simulated brain you'd need a simulated body. I'm sure of that. He says it will talk to him, but how will it know English, or German?

I'm sure that a brain trapped in an immobile refrigerator would give us plenty of opportunity to study depression and dementia.

Also the thing about Moore's Law is that we're gonna be hitting fundamental limits by the end of the next decade in terms of transistors. Any future developments like Quantum computing or carbon nanotubes are speculation at this point.

22. Out of the Blue

Comment #140667 by JD Cherry on March 8, 2008 at 9:41 am

I don't see how you could ethically create a person in a box (or four boxes) and use it for experimental purposes. If it's a full simulation of the human brain, wouldn't it get hungry, sad, afraid, angry, horny? I doubt we'll see anything like consciousness produced in a supercomputer for a long time, besides.

That said, the practical uses outlined in the story are intriguing.

23. My Argument With God

Comment #131582 by JD Cherry on February 22, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Ricky Gervais is a comic genius. I think it's a good point that children are inquisitive enough that such a simple question as "Why?" would lead to a torrent of other ones.

24. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128902 by JD Cherry on February 18, 2008 at 8:46 am

I'd say that Clarke's second law better suits any value that gonzo tech speculation has: "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

25. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128789 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 11:49 pm

A "Critical Issues in Canadian Society" course that I took actually made me switch my major away from sociology.

Critical issues facing our fine nation included the fact that the brave prostitutes who reject the prison of marriage and childrearing are proletarian class warriors from a marxist-feminist third wave perspective. Science is a tool of female oppression according to this lot. Even worse, to pass the test I had to regurgitate all the prof's nonsense.

That being said, I don't have a huge problem with multiculturalism. As long as people follow the law of the land as laid out in our charters, don't deprive their children in any way and respect individual rights, they can live as they please for all I care. There is no one Canadian culture, beer and hockey aside.

Canada's already got built-in indigenous cultures nation wide. I've worked in the far north where the people don't speak English. We've also got French-Canadians desperately trying to preserve their language and culture in Quebec.

26. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128785 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 11:42 pm

The development of AI at some point is surely going to make space travel a lot easier, at least for some sorts of intelligence. No need for life support if you are based on silicon and can just power down for a few thousand years between stars.....

27. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128782 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 11:29 pm

I really enjoyed an entry in John Brockman's edge question for "What is your Dangerous Idea" which concerned the Fermi Paradox. Can't remember the name of the fellow who wrote it but he said that it could be the result of runaway consumerism. When a civilization can gratify all its physical needs, it never gets its ass off the couch to explore the stars.

I honestly don't know that we would ever see Dyson spheres and the like. The amount of matter required for such a massive undertaking would require all of the heavy elements in most solar systems, I would think...

I think one would have to be optimistic to think that any civilization would last for millions of years. Look at our own planet, so many of our societies have collapsed. I would wager that there's a crust of ancient machines on many planets out there.

Jaron Lanier wrote a neat article for Discover magazine where he suggested that we re-arrange the stars into recognizably artificial patterns using slight gravitational modification, and that we should look for evidence of the same elsewhere!

28. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128763 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 10:44 pm

When you review the history of Western Thought leading up to the Englightenment, there were certainly no guarantees along the way. We're actually pretty lucky that any culture managed to break out of ancient superstition.

In fact it was mostly just a tiny learned subculture within a larger culture. This disparate pattern remains starkly clear in the United States, where the average person's beliefs are sharply at odds with the beliefs of most of the elite scientists.

29. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128759 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm

I think the only answer reasonable to Fermi's Paradox is that we are alone.

We seem to be tempted to fall into some kind of mental puritanism. Why should not we have grand, even outrageous, visions of the future?

30. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128753 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 10:22 pm

But even so, I suspect a computer might pass the Turing test by 2029 if someone figures out how to duplicate the mass collaboration of Wikipedia and direct it at, say, filling out the knowledge base of Doug Lenat's Cyc program.

31. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128746 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 9:59 pm

I have a feeling that the ground-up robotics approach to machine intelligence will be much more fruitful than modeling software on brain simulations.

Anyways, I suppose the religious aspects of Kurzweil's thought come in when he uses grand statements like "This is the fate of the universe". Or for example when he proclaims that humanity has to be the only sentient creatures in the milky way, or we would have been swept up in someone else's Singularity. Hilarious references to "Version 1.0 bodies". Or when he proclaims that death is a tragedy and that mortal life is not truly meaningful.

Here's a dialog from The Singularity is Near, I slogged through that poorly-written repetitive tome by the way:

"Bill (Gates (lol)): I agree with you 99%. What I like about your ideas is that they are grounded in science, but your optimism is almost a religious faith...

Ray: Yes, well, we need a new religion. A principal role of religion has been to rationalize death, since up until just now there was little else constructive we could do about it.

...

Bill: So is there a God in this religion?

Ray: Not yet, but there will be. Once we saturate the matter and energy in the universe with intelligence, it will "wake up," be conscious, and sublimely intelligent. That's about as close to God as I can imagine."

This is a man who honestly believes he will never die. His absolute certainty in the inevitability of his projections can hardly be called scientific. You'd be amazed how many young folks in the computer science industry really buy into Kurzweil's eschatology, even as life-long AI researchers go about their work without even having heard of this "Singularity". I have to say that knowing that the world's richest man is a True Believer is a bit vexing.

32. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128691 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 4:35 pm

The man thinks that the solar system will be disassembled into nanocomputers by the end of the century. . . I really wish that the BBC report would have included that.

His beliefs are truly religious. "Singularitarianism" is an eschatology, and a misanthropic, dehumanizing one at that. To these people all that humans basically are is computers. We need to build more computers and stronger computers for computers sake. Eventually the whole universe must become a computer. I find it offensive.

33. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128659 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Lucas - I'm a huge Stephenson fan! I plowed through the Baroque Cycle recently having read The Diamond Age and Cryptonomicon years ago. I actually just bought Snow Crash.

Stephenson is indeed penning the script for the mini-series of TDA, which is a good sign. When I'd heard it would be on the sci-fi network I was a bit worried. George Clooney of all people is producing it!

34. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128650 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Hrm. Maybe it's just incredulity on my part, but with software being as brittle and slow-moving as it is, I just can't imagine a conscious human entity living inside somethng like Deep Blue in 21 years. Based on replicating every nook and cranny of a biological brain in silicon or something no less.

In terms of interface I really meant something more like a two way flow of digital information. I'm aware of the chimp that moved the robot accross the ocean.

35. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128643 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 1:47 pm

What I really have a problem with in terms of Kurzweil's theory is that it ultimately rests on the idea that a simulated brain will function exactly as a real one would. For that to work, brains and computers would have to work almost identically to begin with.

Besides, I think that a brain in a vat would be nonsensical even if it could think.

36. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128635 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I think you underestimate the complexity of the brain if you buy into the mind uploading scenario. Interfacing and electrically stimulating are different things. It reminds me of something Dan Dennett wrote a few years back:

"I’m glad that Lanier entertains the hunch that Dawkins and I (and Hofstadter and others) "see some flaw in logic that insulates [our] thinking from the eschatalogical implications" drawn by Kurzweil and Moravec. He’s right. I, for one, do see such a flaw, and I expect Dawkins and Hofstadter would say the same. My reason has always been that the visionaries who imagine self-reproducing robots taking over in the near future have bizarrely underestimated the complexities of life. Consider the parallel flaw in the following passage from truth to foolishness:

TRUE: living bodies are made up of nothing but millions of varieties of organic molecules organized by the trillions into complex dynamic structures such as cells and larger assemblies (there is no élan vital, in other words).

FOOLISH CONCLUSION: therefore we shall soon achieve immortality; all we have to do is direct all our research and development into molecular biology with the goal of replacing those individual molecules, one at a time, as they break or wear out.

You don’t have to be a vitalist to reject this technocratic fantasy, and you don’t have to be a dualist, an anti-mechanist, to reject simplistic visions of some AI utopia just around the corner."

37. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128630 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 1:28 pm

He is a great inventor, I'll give him that.

38. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128625 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 1:21 pm

That's what I mean, I don't think you'd need computer hardware in comparable quantities to a brain. Synapses aren't quite as fast as transistors. Also, the brain is massively parallel, unlike a computer. As I said I'm enthusiastic about AI, but Kurzweil's mind uploading scenario is based on the assumption that the brain could interface with a computer.

If our kind of intelligence is absolutely substrate neutral, then you'd have to admit that intelligence could exist in the form of rocks or paper in a massive enough quantity, no?

39. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128615 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 12:52 pm

We probably have more than enough hardware to run an AI program now. The software is the problem, and I don't think that Kurzweil's scenario will pan out. You can simulate a stomach on a computer and it won't digest food.

40. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128606 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 12:45 pm

As far as chess goes, I'd site Doug Hofstadter who said that Deep Blue beating Kasparov was "a watershed event for computing, but it has nothing to do with computers becoming intelligent."

For Kurzweil's scenario to work we need to assume that the next generation of computing beyond the end of the silicon chip cycles in the late 2010's will continue the smooth exponential trend of Moore's Law, whether it's through carbon nanotubes or quantum computing or whatever.

Even the most wildly optimistic people in the industry think there will be some sort of a sigmoid curve as the current technology is phased out. Kurzweil believes that exponential growth is an ultimate law of nature whether biological or technological. He's got all sorts of graphs that plot evolution on a logarithmic grid from bacteria to pc's.

Also, for his ideas to pan out the brain has to be exactly like a digital computer. He knows that the software argument is a killer for his theory so he relies on the reverse engineering of the brain which is (suprise suprise) increasing exponentially for a template on which to build a simulation. In other words, for his near term scenario to pan out, a simulated silicon human brain would have to work exactly like a real one. I'm highly skeptical. Even Rodney Brooks and Dan Dennett are increasingly moving away from the computational theory as a panacea for AI, if you look at their entries on this year's Edge.org question centre.

I'm really enthusastic about AI, but I don't really think it's worth getting overly worked up about in the short term. I'd recommend Jaron Lanier's One Half a Manifesto on edge.org or the video of Doug Hofstadter at the Stanford Singularity Summit to get an idea about how most thinkers trained in scientific skepticism are treating the idea.

Really I think it's a sort of faith more than anything. Kurzweil's dad and grandpa both died young, and his entire programme is based on a "singularity" happening just in time to upload his brain so he can live forever. He takes hundreds of supplements every day, drinks 20 cups of green tea, and has his blood tested every week. He's a nut.

Kurzweil thinks that we'll be disassembling the solar system to make massive jupiter sized computers by the end of the century. Really, I'm disappointed that the BBC is endorsing his pseudo-religious views.

41. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128380 by JD Cherry on February 16, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Asking if nanotech is morally wrong seems to me an absurd question. Really though, I don't think that the respondents were concerned about the applications for paints and detergents etc.

In the longer term I'd be concerned with the threats to privacy. Snooping governments, both foreign and domestic, would be one thing, but the applications for targeted advertising would be huge.

Spyware and keystroke logging already pose some concerns. How can I ever be alone if the dust might be watching?

42. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106716 by JD Cherry on January 3, 2008 at 10:04 am

I think that there is some confusion here between changing ourselves and ultilizing technologies to better communicate and thrive in a global environment, and completely altering ourselves into unrecognizable techno-creatures. I think you all should read some Jaron Lanier.

Isn't there some disconnect between believing that natural selection is a horrible, brutal, criminally inefficient process with the odd wonderful product, and then wanting to further evolution at the cost of losing what makes us who we are?

Also, won't the beings that replace us be themselves replaced even faster than we were? I don't see why we should feel any obligation to take that leap. . .

And its funny that the proponents of transhumanism see it as an inevitable product of the invisible hand of the market and then think that selfishness will disappear. The whole thing is based on a faulty concept of human nature itself, if you ask me.

43. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105822 by JD Cherry on January 1, 2008 at 9:56 pm

This article is unsettling. I have a feeling I'll be among the 21st century's version of the Amish. Assuming I'm not killed or forcefully transformed by the Ubermenshen. Maybe the absolutely reason-based immortal transhumans of the future will chop up my obsolete frame for parts, or maybe I'll be kept as a pet or something.

How can one see humans as machines on a scale of perfectability and not lose a respect for basic human dignity? Will the transhumans see us regular folk as something like whales or chimps? or will it be like bacteria?

44. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #105163 by JD Cherry on December 30, 2007 at 7:40 pm

I like Rowan Williams. I honestly don't think all the mean-spiritedness here is warranted.

Here's the full text of the sermon if anyone is interested.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/12/25/ACNS4357

"The delighted reverence and amazement we should have towards the things of creation is intensified many times where human beings are concerned. And if peace is to be more than a pause in open conflict, it must be grounded in this passionate amazed reverence for others."

Almost brings a tear to the eye.

45. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #105155 by JD Cherry on December 30, 2007 at 7:08 pm

I would not react to impending doom with philosophy. Concentrating on my extinction would be the last thing I'd like to do.

I honestly think that the theist would be less likely to go mad with fear than the atheist. Just speaking for myself, I suppose.

I think the boatload of agnostics would have the most interesting conversation.

46. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #86014 by JD Cherry on November 7, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Watch this in the meantime, very good British doc about the trial. Not sure if this has been posted here. Our favourite evolutionary biologist makes a few appearances.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6485580088897217945

47. A New Debate

Comment #85401 by JD Cherry on November 5, 2007 at 6:18 pm

I think that Neil Degrasse Tyson would be an ideal moderator for a science debate.

48. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84367 by JD Cherry on November 1, 2007 at 11:06 pm

What really got me was when he suggested that thinking a butterfly's purpose is gathering nectar rather than looking pretty is a dehumanizing notion. The Douglas Adams quote at the start of The God Delusion comes to mind.

Daniel Dennett is an avowed Cathedral-phile. Dawkins has said many times that the music of religion is a treasure, and that one cannot understand European history without Christianity. Harris said that the Bible should be shelved respectfully next to Dante and Shakespeare. Hitch... well I'll get back to you. Anyways, these men do not regret western civilization. The fact is that it's time to grow up.

I really wonder what goes on in the mind of a man who claims to have sworn off God at age 9, and writes religious apologetics. He must really think that the universe is thoroughly dreadful, and that only people like him who have the consolation of philosophy can make a godless life bearable.

Finally, I wonder if it irks faith-heads to have the godless providing their arguments for them. I would think that it would be insulting to have all these philosophers shrugging off your God's existence then claiming that you have no innate ability to make life worth living without your ancient fairy tales. We at least give them the respect of thinking they can handle the truth, should they accept it.

49. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82573 by JD Cherry on October 26, 2007 at 7:00 pm

I would have loved to have heard this discussion over the doctrine of reincarnation between "a car full of 10 year olds".

"I WANT TO BE A PUPPY CUZ THEY'RE CUTE!"

50. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82568 by JD Cherry on October 26, 2007 at 6:43 pm

What I would like very much to say is, that while I agree with the sentiment expressed in the aforesaid dialogue, and feel it an adequate catalyst for the discussion vis a vis children and child abuse, the author of this paragraph, himself a former atheist, has previously used the moniker "The Dawkins Delusion" for a recent literary work.

- McG