bascule

No, I don't. I don't think you understood what I said at all. Never did I say there was a "peak evolved state" at which evolution would stop... And nothing I said assumes static evolutionary conditions

We don't have national referendums period. We are completely at the mercy of our legislators when it comes to national law. It sucks.

I'm all for a meritocracy. Bwahaha

Updated my signature to reflect this thread

Yes, a highly unstable hybrid of ColdFusion and ASP.NET is the paragon of how to set up a web site.

Ann Coulter is a professional troll. By the looks of this thread, she succeeded.

I wrote the overwhelming majority of the web site, however there are several components in it written by others, namely the web-based audio recorder and video transcoding system. And yes, this is what I've been doing professionally for the past 6 months.

Just for reference, this region is approximately the size of the state of Colorado: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=8&ll=-10.822515,-61.693726&spn=4.196764,7.080688&t=h&om=1 That's really, really scary (Zoom in)

So what you're saying is men are more focused?

Here's what I've been working on. It's a simple system for producing Internet TV and radio channels in RSS format: http://www.clickcaster.com/

That's the problem with epiphenomena... they don't operate within set timescales. Since evolution depends on a number of different events which don't occur with any sort of regularity, so it becomes impossible to specify a timescale. Although, if you do want a rough estimate, I'd say a billion years or so. I admit the unbounded timescale poses a problem, as do issues like a changing sun. I do hope you see the point I'm getting at, despite the flawed way I'm expressing it. I'm getting back to the whole "rewinding the tape" idea and how the constraints of biological systems will ultimately lead them towards the same innovations, although the specific nature of those innovations would of course be dramatically different from what exists today. A "nookaryote" would have a radically different internal architecture from a eukaryote, but the basic "goals" it would accomplish with its internal architecture would be highly similar. On the evolutionary timescale, it's a blink of an eye. No. That sounds silly. I don't think any humans will be around by the time it becomes an issue. Within the constraints of biological systems, life has an amazing ability to adapt. I'd be lying if I said it were possible to talk about life systems in these sorts of teleological terms with any degree of certainty. What I'm discussing are trends, not certainties. However I think the constraints of biological systems cause evolution to naturally tend towards particular configurations in similar situations, given a similar starting point. It's constraint that drives convergence, and I think with enough blind stumbling life systems (on earth, yes, on earth. Earth conditions are one of the constraint) will iterate over the same list of "solutions" I outlined above over and over again. Whether or not the planet will remain habitable enough is a different matter entirely, but I'd expect similar timetables overall to what happened in the first place. I was quite astounded by St. Edward's University chemist Eamonn Healy, who describes in the film Waking Life the acceleration of evolution by breaking it down into "two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, a hundred-thousand years for mankind as we know it" then describes the acceleration of human cultural evolution as being ten thousand years for agriculture, four hundred years for the scientific revolution, and one hundred fifty years for the industrial revolution. Evolution has always seemed like a system asymptotically approaching a final endpoint to me...

I think there's a more important question we can ask about this: Let's say we wipe out everything except for prokaryotes 1) Would we see a new eukaryote-like organism evolve? 2) Would multicellular organisms evolve? 3) Would sexual reproduction evolve? 4) Would animals with mammal-like intelligence evolve? 5) Would consciousness evolve? I see these as inevitabilities, provided life doesn't go completely extinct. I also admit the conceit of hindsight and the teleological phrasing of the question. Perhaps a better way to phrase these than "Would X evolve?" is "Would circumstances inevitably arise so that X is favored?"

It mainly stems from Kaluza-Klein theory, which unifies electromagnetism and gravity within a five dimensional spacetime.

I'm much more of an argumentative person. My Jungian personality type operate by convincing myself of my own positions via argumentation much more than I use argument to inform or convince otherothers. My positions on issues tend to vacillate quite rapidly based on available information, and for the majority of my opinions I have held the opposite and decided to switch after evidence convinced me otherwise. Thus it's difficult for me to interact with with people who are fixed in their positions and not open to having their beliefs challenged. Most people take offense at having their beliefs challenged and thus interacting with them, when argumentation is the basis of a great deal of my own knowledge, has proven difficult.

And holy crap, a memeology!

Well, of course I'm SFN's self-appointed Singularity zealot, and I've certainly contributed quite a bit towards the linked Wikipedia article. Unfortunately I've stopped reading fiction, and the last of Vernor Vinge's books I read was A Fire Upon the Deep (I heard bad things about A Deepness in the Sky, the sequel) Right now I'm deeply immersed in Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence which is the most comprehensive book on the operation of the brain I have ever read. But, always great to see the meme spreading, particularly into the LQG community. I think Smolin in particular is onto ideas the Singularity people would really love (I certainly do!) and I'm glad to see the attraction between the groups is mutual, at least to a certain extent. In the end both groups seek a more complete understanding of the material world, because in that understanding lies the confirmation or refutation of assumptions each group has made. I believe ideas evolved as life evolved as the universe evolved, and in this pattern the absolute progress metric I described is exhibited. The mechanisms are different but the end result is the same. And well, sorry to expound upon my ideas and break the 75 word rule, but... hopefully this thread is also intended for the constructive discussion of ideas as long as we can put argument aside.

But everyone knows the universe ends on December 21st, 2012 which marks the end of the Mayan Calendar. DUH!

Hundreds of people before you have sworn the same. All have been exposed as frauds by Randi, most notably spoon bending nutjob Uri Geller. Following being exposed as a fraud by Randi, Uri began a rapid decline into obscurity. Sounds like unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence to me. Yes, that would be the nature of cognitive bias. Chi does not exist. Just because people feel something exists doesn't make it a fact Quantum mechanics has provided us with a scientific understanding of what fields exists and how they interact. Chi does not exist in the standard model, sorry. This is nonsense in the light of our modern understanding of physics, biology, and medicine. Sharks have a remarkably developed sense of olfaction as well as the ability to sense electrically the movements of their prey. Both of these represent well understood scientific mechanisms which are consistent with physics, chemistry, and our understanding of a shark's biology. There's no "chi" involved. Yes, it goes in the same bin of "possibilities" as vampires, leprichauns, Zeus, manticores, Dionysus, chimeras, satyrs, griffons, Cerberus, etc. While the non-existence of these entities cannot be proven, they are completely unevidenced, and therefore not worth consideration.

I believe there is an absolute progress metric, advancement towards which is an epiphenomenon of universal change. I reject existentialism; I see humans as structural components of the universe whose collective action furthers the evolution of the universe towards this absolute progress metric. I believe we will transcend all limits of biology, infuse the universe with life, and achieve, as Tesla put it, 'the complete mastery of mind over the material world'

herme3, the US has long been something of a hub of the world's economy. We create so much wealth using such a small amount of material we have (until this century) managed to maintain a growing economy despite a negative trade balance. The dollar continued to grow in value as we used it to purchase goods worldwide. Another way to look at IMM's example is the importation of raw material which is used to produce finished goods which are resold domestically. This results in a net increase of wealth for the country, despite a negative trade balance. The negative trade balance has been amplified by the Bush's administration's massive foreign borrowing and rampant T-bills. This has diluted the value of the dollar, meaning it takes more dollars to import the same amount of goods. Where 1 Euro used to be worth $0.80, now $1 is worth 0.80 Euro. While this is reflected in a growing trade deficit in terms of a dollar valuation, the real culprit is a weak dollar.

You're the one making the statement... therefore you're the one with the burden of proof. You can't substantiate the statement so why is it even worth considering? If she does not accept evolution then she is certainly ignorance of the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the theory. I don't see how this is any different than say, someone choosing to dismiss relativity... they are either ignorant of the evidence, too unintelligent to comprehend it, or incapible of comprehending anything. Disbelief in evolution is not an intellectually defensible position. You present quotes out of context then argue that he's not being specific enough? I'm sorry, this is all a red herring, and one I can just as easily direct at you... you said "My wife does not believe in evolution", well, what does that mean? I don't think Dawkins need delve into the semantics of "evolution" every time he makes a statement about it... the man has written book after book on the subject. I think there are really two core principles one need accept: 1. All life on earth shares a common ancestry 2. All life reached its present form through evolution by natural selection I'm guessing your wife rejects both of these?

If someone could do that under controlled conditions, James Randi would pay them $1,000,000. Ugh, can we keep this discussion scientific or move it to pseudoscience? This is really getting ridiculous. Chi doesn't exist. You aren't psychic. Brain waves cannot influence objects in your outside environment. Period.

I believe Burt Rutan tried to build something like this (an airframe towed by a kite) and gave up. Not sure if it was Rutan... might've been some other experimental aircraft designer. Anyway, I think keeping the thing stable was damn near impossible. I don't think the idea is feasible, and I think the OP's claims of improved safety, reliability, and speed are all hogwash. I don't think such planes would be either safe or reliable, and as far as speed goes, there's a reason why sailboats were abandoned as passenger and cargo transports: engines are faster, more reliable, and substantially easier to operate.

Here is your strawman, again: Dawkins never says anyone who is a Christian is stupid. Those are words you are sticking in his mouth. Here is the definition of strawman, from Wikipedia: Dawkins position is NOT "anyone who is a Christian is stupid". You are presenting that as being the case, yet so far you have not found any statements from Dawkins which corroborate this position. It's no different from me saying "Severian thinks we should kill all Sabbath-breakers" Where in any of these quotes does he say anything remotely to the effect of "anyone who is a Christian is stupid" Honestly, Severian, if you're going to accuse me of calling strawman when none exists, you could at least substantiate how you are NOT misrepresenting his argument. The most basic refutation of your strawman is that Dawkins claims regarding stupidity (which he lists as one of three possible factors, including ignorance and sanity) deal with people who disbelieve evolution. You claim to believe evolution, and you are a Christian, therefore "anyone who is a Christian is stupid" does not follow from any of Dawkins statements regarding disbelief in evolution.