bascule

Fallacy: False dichotomy

The golden ratio is: [math]\frac{a}{b} = \frac{b}{a+b}[/math] So substitute [math]a = \phi - 1[/math] and [math]b = 1[/math]: [math]\phi-1 = \frac{1}{\phi}[/math]

3 bowls, I think Something tells me you've smoked more than me

Yeah, I just have a moral opposition to discontinuity/magic numbers

The specific nature of the earth's radiative imbalance is still unknown, however we are certain that an overall warming trend exists. Mainly you'll see: - The problem is not yet well-understood (therefore) - Multi-decadal global climate forecasting is not yet skillful - Our ability to predict long term climate vulnerabilities is not yet skillful - More research on the problem is needed before action is taken - Our ability to measure the global surface temperature is limited, and its usefulness as a metric in terms of diagnosing the specific nature of Earth's radiative imbalance is a matter of debate - Our ability to discern warming from regional sources versus that incurred from forcings which are global in scope such as CO2 is still limited, and very little regionally focused atmospheric research is taking place comapred to the resources invested in understanding forcings which are global in scope You're not going to find many credible atmospheric scientists who are going to argue against the idea that the world is warming and that CO2 (from anthropogenic sources) is the primary cause. These two matters are fairly well established. The devil is in the details, and that's what's really up for debate.

Scientific knowlege is obviously not religious in nature, regardless of whether or not it rests on unprovable axioms. The definition you gave for religious knowledge is blatantly wrong. Have a look at some definitions of "religion". What pattern do you see? Belief in a deity or in the supernatural/metaphysical. Since science is not concerned with these things, it certainly isn't religious. Now, let's go back to your original assertion: Now, can you find me a statement regarding a deity or things of a supernatural/metaphysical nature in the constitution? If not, it is not a religious document.

The problem with delegating the construction of a search engine index is verifying the authenticity of the data returned. I think such a system would become immensely vulnerable to spam... think of how many spammers already control botnets with tens or hundreds of thousands of infected machines. How could you possibly protect a distributed search engine index from spam attacks from these systems? I predict a search in such a system would yield results for porn and online gambling sites for virtually every search term.

African prostitutes have already developed an immunity (the ones who didn't develop the immunity have all been wiped out) So yes, natural selection at work

For the love of God make it stop... my head, it hurts me

On my father's side my grandparents were Italians (a Calabrian and a Sicilian) who immigrated into this country after Mussolini made Italy part of the Axis. My dad was born shortly thereafter. My mom's side is a little less certain. All I really know for certain is my great grandfather on my grandfather's side is a native born American of pure Irish descent. My grandmother's side is Scottish.

Going to go with "No" here

It's like a jungle sometimes... it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under

Phil, Call it a protoscience or pseudoscience if you want... I guess I should add that my concept of memetics comes just as much from James Burke as it does from Dawkins, Dennett, and Blackmore. Burke's obsession was tracking the origins of novelty and innovation and showing how they spread throughout a population. He loved to show how one person influenced another, and how the presence of (technological) objects within one's environment affects one's behavior. I really include memetics as part of my own philosophy of how progressive evolution permeates the universe, and I suppose its exact workings, as I envision, deviate significantly from those of Dawkins, Blackmore, Dennett, etc. As I stated earlier, to me, it's really about how phenomenological objects evolve in collective intelligence environments... and it's a pattern I see everywhere, especially in the field in which I work: social networking and folksonomies If your argument is simply that memetics isn't a science, well, then I'm forced to agree, and have already conceeded this. If not, what is your point? It seems like otherwise this is just a boring semantic argument

They form continuous mating groups spread throughout a region, but wrap around in such a way that when the two groups on the extreme ends of the ring are exposed to each other, they choose not to reproduce with each other because the differences between them are too extreme. For example, Ensatina eschscholtzi: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Given the brain's nature of being a molecular computer which is attached to a continuously flowing stream of molecular fuel and building blocks, the "brain's capacity" becomes a nearly immeasurable quantity. It's like trying to ask "What's the fastest you can possibly run?" You can only perform multiple trials, find some way to exert yourself to your maximum, and see what the highest you can get actually is. Your "brain's capacity" isn't as definable quantity as the fastest you can run, so divising a test to determine this quantity will probably yield dubious results. An IQ test is the closest I can think of to a proper metric.

By Catholic girls at the CYO when they're learning to blow?

Oh please, by that logic, all human knowledge is religious in nature because it rests on unprovable axioms.

All of your neurons are active all of the time. It's not like your neurons shut themselves off to save power. If you cut off blood flow to neurons they'll die within minutes.

We'd be normal, healthy human beings.

I think acid and other entheogens including salvia divinorum have aided me in my own (very much unscientific) autophenomenological research into epistemology. I think throwing a monkey wrench into your consciousness provides a unique perspective for observing its operation. I like to think my own understanding of consciousness, albeing gleaned and purloined off the gestalt consciousness of many modern thinkers, is fairly clear and would not be that way without realizations I've had while on acid.

I'd like to see tax brackets replaced with a continuous system (i.e. percentage of tax levied as a function of income)

Which fails terribly thanks to the continuist nature of life. Ring species are probably the best example.

The internal combustion engine. Take away, say, the alternator or distributor, and it ceases to have the properties of an internal combustion engine (i.e. it can no longer convert gasoline fuel into mechanical energy). Neither will the alternator or distributor have these properties in an of themselves. Only when you reassemble the engine into working order does it have these properties. None of the individual parts of the engine have these properties in and of themselves. This goes for virtually any machine: it's built out of parts which are arranged in such a way to accomplish a given task which none of the parts alone can accomplish.

I'm going to go with no, although such a universe could share many of the same properties as our own.

This is a pretty awesome documentary about the Singularity: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1079797626827646234