Area54

An argument from incredulity is never persuasive. I shall ponder whether or not to invest the time to respond in detail. In the meantime, I would ask what makes you feel your intellect is superior to that of von Neumann? Or do you think his proposal for autonomous, self replicating probes was entirely a lighthearted excursion into SF?

Using an appropriate vocabulary for a productive discussion is not an obsession, but a prerequisite for advancing that discussion. Why are you so afraid of the word? I haven't taken a position. I've simply challenged you to elucidate yours - something you seem unable to do. And yet we saw the example where, a police chief in the US, prior to the riot beginning, defused the situation by offering to walk with the protestors. As you say, a thesis can easily be disposed of by a single, contrary example. Done and dusted. If you can make the request without the misapplication of emotive adjectives, I shall be happy to track down a link to the example mentioned above. Note: looking through your posts it seems you have an inclination to be disagreeable. IF you continue with that attitude with me then my side of the conversation is at an end.

If you genuinely have no model then you are just farting into the wind and your comments may be disregarded. However, i think you do have a model, it is just over-simplified. I suggest you reflect on the meaning of the word 'model' in a scientific context. You should then, readily, recognise that you do have a model. I say your model is over-simplified since you fail to consider, for example, having police deployed with 'social workers', or psychologists. Or having improved physical safeguards for the protection of property. Or adjusting the training of officers to reduce or eliminate harmful interactions. And those are just some of the options that are ignored in your simple model, or, as you call it, your "abject truth". So, I should like to understand on what basis you reject these (and similar) examples. Unless you are able to do so your argument is refuted.

Could you review the justification for this claim please. It appears valid if, and only if, one has a closed system with two goals, yet that is not a sound model of the real world. Your argument then becomes analgous with the Creationists who assert evolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics. Perhaps I am missing something and you can point me to it.

That is an opinion, to which you are fully entitled. I offer my opinion that a sensitively developed and implemented AI, taking advantage of the improved understanding of developmental psychology we might reasonably anticipate over the next couple of centuries, would offer a vastly more human and humane upbringing than is available to many in this century. The same thing all children are for. The continuance of the human race. The difference would be that, unlike many children born to day, they would be intended, they would have extensive support, and they would have awesome opportunities. I'm quite happy to give you the opportunity to withdraw a remark that is beneath you. If you wish to leave it aside why raise it? You will realise that your personal incredulity is not a persuasive argument. Interstellar colonistation, if implemented, will necessarily be a very long term effort. (I suspect that if we are unable to make truly long term plans then our species is doomed anyway.) Do you doubt the ability of purely robotic probes to thorougly investigate potential systems before humans are dispatched? Why do you ignore the possibility of robotic terraforming of barren planets prior to human settlement? Without effort I can imagine a handful of other approaches that address your reservations. Strawman. Why not? We couldn't, perhaps using von Neumann replicators, investigate a world's oceans in detail? The technological gap between 1520 and 2020 is vast, yet that is only half a millenium. Do you expect the advances to cease, or even reverse in say ten millenia?

If we are envisaging a culture capable of constructing a craft delivering interstellar travel and self-repair over a period of centuries, it is not a stretch to consider an artificial womb for the initial physical development of the embryos and robotic/AI 'parents' for the subsequent mental and emotional development of the children.

Very likely. I'm never sure whether to be angry at such people for being so foolish, or sad on their behalf for what they are missing out on. True. Unfortunately this approach can also infect those who ought to know better. It took a century and a half for anthropologists to acknowledge that Neandertals were not necessarilly dumb and brutish.

Automation would be essential, in my opinion. Developing it to an adequate level is unlikely to be a challenge given a century or two to develop. (Airline pilots are really only there to deal with emergencies and point out interesting things to see out the right hand window.) In terms of how you get people there, some options: Hibernation Generation ships Frozen embryos We could update the technology - or at least the knowledge of the technology - via a radio link, but my concern was not technological differences, but cultural and pschological contrasts. It is a cliche that senior citizens are perplexed by i-phones, computers and on-line banking. Amplify that by the changes over a couple of millenia rather than a couple of decades and you have the potential for a move to suicide territory. Certainly, our ability to explore, exploit and colonise the solar system will be an essential prerequisite to interstellar travel. However, thinking about it is both essential and great fun. Plus, manned exploration will always be preceded by extensive robotic probes. We can be thinking about those now, and we are: https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-is-getting-serious-about-an-interstellar-mission/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot True, but there are several candidates.

There is such a thing as over-simplification. Also, assertions made without substantiation require no refutation.

Since, based upon our current understanding of physics, faster-than-light travel will be an impossibility then our visits to other worlds will be for the purpose of colonisation. Perhaps you imagine that the 'compression' of ship-time for near light speed travel would make it feasible to undertake exploration missions. However, by the time the explorers return the social and technological changes on the home planet would have rendered them curiosities.

Over the course of decades I have read a dozen major biographies of Hitler and scores of books on the Third Reich and Germany in the inter-war years in an effort to understand how Hitler achieved and retained power. Despite that study I feel no closer to an answer. I remain as bewildered today by the fascination that Trump seems to exert on a substantial portion of the US population. The brink that the USA seems to be teetering towards is different from the one that ravished Europe almost a century ago, but it may turn out to be no less damaging globally. There is much good sense in America: I set aside my atheism for a moment to pray that it will overcome Trump's cynical narcissism.

An intelligent conservation program takes a measured approach to the problem, not a blind focus on the endangered species, but one that recognises the needs and wishes of all parties in the issue. That is not a matter of "throwing money at the problem", but of constructively using money to develop and implement a practical solution that provides benefits to all. Your criticism might well apply to some conservation efforts, especially early ones, but your seeming dismissal of all such efforts is ill conceived.

However, as long as one recognises this from the outset then the attempt to reason them out of their position can be an effective means of enhancing ones own undestanding of the topic and may serve to prevent other readers from being misled by the, often superficially attractive, nonsense being spouted by the crank.

I cannot see any connection between the contents of my post and your response to it. I shall, however, respond directly to your post. I agree with @dimreepr that speaking of "bad guys" is not helpful. I agree with @paulsutton that "Each case should be treated as an individual case", adding that this distinction of treatment should (generally) relate to sentencing, but not to declaration of guilt or innocence. I agree with @Markus Hanke that people are " responsible for their actions. Whether or not they should be answerable for them is another matter." Your examples, while superficially specific, are actually too general to allow a meaningful answer, other than "it depends".

We may anticipate a resumption of manned lunar exploration within the next five or six years. (See, for example, here.) I am curious about the likely response from those who deny that the Apollo landings ever occurred. Given that the deniers seem to be made up of a mix of trolls, the poorly educated, the gullible and the bloody-minded, I would expect a range of reactions. The poll gives you an opportunity to indicate what you think will be the most common response. Please post the reason(s) for your choice and add any related thoughts. Since this is about the psycholgical response to an engineering approach to pursuing scientific(astronomy & geology), political and economic goals, I was unsure where to place it. Moderators, please move it if you can think of better location.

So, you are one of those amusing people who think you are not already in a virtual reality. Come on! No conceivable real world could actually produce a Donald Trump as President of the US. It's obvious that we have all subscribed to a third rate farce. I'm thinking of asking for a refund.

I would simply like to understand the point you are making. At present it is not clear. Please state your position clearly, because at present I have little or no idea what it is, other than, apparently, being generally disagreeable. You state society is not to blame, but also imply it is to blame. Also note, I have expressed no position whatsoever on the thread topic. My couple of posts have been directed solely at attempting to understand your position. So please don't assign me imaginary motives conjured out of your own psyche.

No, I am focusing on your assertion that "alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease. This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption." That reads, to me, that if there were not a large number of people (ergo, society) creating the demand for alcohol, coupled with many others meeting that demand, then alcoholism would not exist. Thus, as you have written it, you are blaming society. Your post has failed to address that ambiguity. Try again.

So, you are arguing society is to blame, by providing the alcohol? That seems to run counter to your earlier position. I am confused. Using the same logic you would appear to agree that responsibility for the use of guns in violent crimes is not down to the gunmen, but to the existence of many responsible gun owners and the gun industry that equips them. That thought would also seem to run counter to your bumper sticker position.

It would be helpful if you could cite the paper, or at least give some clue as to date, author or journal.

You are welcome. I challenged you on it, partly because the thread, which was silly to start with, seemed to have run its course and partly because I think, on a science forum, we should avoid "lay usage" of scientific terminology. The abuse of "theory" is the one that springs easily to mind, but there are others lurking around of which "average" is one. The average bloke just doesn't seem to get it.

I offer you an alternative. The confusion, ambiguity, uncertainty and seeming paradoxes promoted by quantum mechanics are clearly the work of a super intelligent, vindictive genius. Solid evidence for the existence of the Devil, not of God.

Had he just mentioned average then I would agree, but he stated "by definition". My view is that if one seeks to impart weight to a post by quoting definitions one had best ensure the definition is accurate. Pedantic? I suggest not.

That depends upon whether you are using mean, mode or median. It is only necessarily true for the last.

How much more than the average 1%, 20%, 400%? Where you put the boundary is subjective, as @Dord suggests.