DevilSolution

I have not found the data i was looking for yet regarding the B12 vitamin as it scientifically it seems limited to be created only by living animal metabolism, which means from my research so far that it has to be artificially synthesized using drug metabolism in the form of enzymes used in micro-organisms found naturally in and ONLY in the animals. However a solution does exist, Although not verified (other than online sources of buyng b12) while talking to my friend about this issue of B12, he told me (although i cant persuade him to not eat meat, he is the partially arrogant and partially ignorant kind, such that he doesnt have all the information and he also enjoys eating meat which dont really help my cause), anyway he told me he got a pack of 300 B12 supplements for £5 from the local pharmaceutical, which is pretty dang cheap, lets just say for now that the amount is 1 years of B12 for £5, even if it was 10 times as expensive (like the omega oils are) Its still ONLY £50 a year for these supplement, any poor family in western society can afford this amount of money and if they cant they should be given it by government. So based on this information, which i will verify personally tomorrow by buying 300 supplementary tablets for myself. Then i think this issue of B12 will be disclosed, agreed? Now the process of getting all the correct information about the production costs is larger than i expected as i cant find a single website that would be deemed scientifically reliable. Its not as easy to find the raw data as i expected. in reply to the quote above: Im not twisting anything, if you eat meat, you are liable for the death of a sentient animal. Infact in an average life time, humans eat: 8.2832 cows 1818.2 chickens 20.203 pigs 60.609 turkeys 4.8487 ducks 3434.5 fish the age put in the calculator as 62 see how many animals you've actually had murdered for these nutrients that you seem to believe are so essential to your survival. http://wonder.sitehacks.com/animalssaved.php?m=24&d=4&y=1951 I dont know how the calculator works it out, i presume by the amount of meat were supposed to eat by any recommended healthy diet is what is calculated, though again i am racking up data to prove that meat isnt essential for a healthy diet and in some not so extreme cases is actually quite bad for us (such as red meat, meat cooked in particular ways, certain cuts of meat or simply re-heating or preparing meat wrong (i will verify these claims)). Finally based on the fact that B12 is less than £1 a week to supplement i think its time we drop it from the charter. Once i have a receipt i will upload it as evidence of its cost. I think now the main issue is that of an economical one, do you get more nutrients per buck for your meat or for the alternatives that can be created given the same production costs; I.E. is it an economically sustainable idea to switch from meat to alternatives NOW rather than when people start becoming curious or more sentient and start changing their idea's and beliefs, infact i would like to explore this idea a little more, why are people so stubborn to change there views and beliefs, especially those ethical beliefs that seem to take more effort than than other ethical beliefs: for example i could say "i dont believe in killing dogs, i think they are sentient beings and a good companion for humans" and equally i could say: "i dont believe in killing sentient being's, i think they each have there own purpose or else wouldnt exist, however its our job after being gifted by nature as the most sentient(1) of all living animals to discover this purpose and help them on there way" Theres 2 distinct differences in both of the 2 paraphrases, the first is that one requires alot more effort to abide by ethically, everybody uniformly agrees that killing a family dog is a twisted act and that its not ethical (unless its been viscous but i will discuss this concept later), i also think most people with a fair appreciation or understanding of the word "sentience" would partially but not equally agree with the second paraphrase and ovcourse if you have no comprehension of the meaning behind the word sentience then by default your subconsciously or un-purposefully ignorant of the forces at play in the world. (also your in the WRONG sub-forum my friend), and ill tell you why for a fine fact more people would agree with top one than the bottom is not only the fact they have a dog or like dogs and find them a good companion but this also has alot to do with the way in which you perceive the world. I.E. the culture and society in which you are raised, that is main reason why more people will agree with the top than the bottom paraphrase. I wonder how many people that agree with the first and disagree with the second have actually seen a pigs intellect and sentience first hand, watch them kick a ball around with each other play in the mud? How many chinese people will refuse to eat dog? This is sociological issue related to the nature of mankinds lazy choice to conform to the here and now rather than struggle with the reality and concepts of what *could* be or *should* be. Finally and very importantly If we are the most sentient (self defined) beings on this planet surely we should be the guardians of this planet, fighting against disease and famine and war and any situations that sentient beings should not be in, by using our intelligence to develop technology we have created a situation where animals dont need to be farmed agriculturally for there meat and generations of animals need not suffer. just a though.

I realise ive made some bold statements and accusations regarding cruelty and alternatives to meat so before we take this debate any further regarding *forcing* the choice upon specific individuals, i will try and find sources for these answers. I'll define below the points i wanted to raise and still believe need discussing, i'm going to spend some time *now* researching the B12 vitamin, overall production costs involved in animal incarceration and slaughter and also the overall nutritional advantages / disadvantages that go along with taking meat from the ordinary persons diet. I think coming up with a solid set of evidence for both sides of these 3 issues will determine the eventual outcome of the debate (which is totally disregarding the actual ethical point of murder and cruelty). EDIT: after doing a little research it may actually take a while to find all the scientific evidence i need, there's quit alot of data to get through, especially regarding B12 and the total cost of meat nutrition versus alternatives nutrition (this is quite difficult because theres lots of variables). A small side note however is although alternatives might be more expensive and certain nutrients vital to certain aspects of metabolism (which i don't yet know fully and will soon have sourced information for). I still want to direct the main aspects of this debate to the people who can afford the alternatives including food fortified with the elusive B12 vitamin or supplements, people who agree with (or dont care) about the cruelty and mass murder involved in meat production or also the generally ignorant, as quoted from OP "that which you dont know wont hurt you", for *THESE* specific individual cases, where the ignorant or arrogant are both financially capable (which i think ive gone OTT in trying to explain are the majority of meat eaters), can it, or is it, ethically sound to force them to *STOP* eating meat??????? The original solution i offered can ovcourse be adjusted to suit this situation (less cattle infected etc etc), but i will attempt to demonstrate how the large majority of people who eat meat from the production line infact fall into atleast the ignorant OR arrogant OR those with the education but not the will power and whom are also financially capable. Again i apologise if im frustrating you, its quite a difficult thing to explain to somebody without using extreme examples or hypothetical situations the exact ethics that exist within this subject (such as the cruelty and murder, the nutritional aspects of potentially *needing* meat and also the whole issue of forcing ethics and removing choice). Ive made it clear my belief is that the whole meat industry has corrupt ethical values so i hope you understand why i skip over finer details that hold back the main ethical debate of forcing choice when a specific criteria is met (the finer details i mean are the lack of a very very very specific vitamin, or having to pay 20% extra on meat alternatives etc etc), i admit i have somewhat skipped over them, or atleast not found any solid scientific counter argument only hypothetical and ethical ones, so again as previously mentioned i will now put the time into finding out the facts and sharing the results. Also i will also apologise for the way i conducted my argument so far, i was at times quite vulgar and particular with the way i worded my argument and it may have come across as hypocritical, arrogant or purely bad natured. Ive already mentioned that i think we agree on some of the very core ethics of this debate but disagree on what or how things can be done to change this situation. Also i will read through the debate again in more detail to find out your views on incarceration as a form of cruelty or mental torture as i dont fully understand if you think its okay to encage animals (yes/no), this is also quite an important aspect of the debate as giving animals a high degree of freedom will sharply increase its cost making alternatives more cost effective. I appreciate your point, i think i can find evidence to the contrary, i will find some data showing that the overall production cost and nutrition that goes into animal feed, transportation, refrigeration etc etc far outweighs the alternative of farming the land or even farming upwards in skyscrapers. I also appreciate your point on the circle of life, however ethically there is ofcourse an argument to be made for pointlessly murdering a sentient being other no other purpose than for taste or a single vitamin which could potentially be mass made (i need to find out). I think your not quite grasping what im actually suggesting, if we infect the animals (all or a majority) so they become inedible they will become purposeless to us humans, so we will no longer keep them in cages or fields (where the veg will be) and hence will either starve to death or be killed anyway. HOWEVER i purpose at this point, when they all die because we no longer need or raise them, can we say the world is better off for not torturing and murdering them, i dont think people quite get this *sentience* thing. Look at this way, if you was a cow what would you want to do? keep being caged, watch your young die, being made massively overweight and having problems with muscular pain your whole life to then finally get murdered. (this is within regulation, regardless of behind the door cruelty and torture) Or would you say NO, ive had enough, kill me, and if all generations that follow are to be subjected to the same conditions, kill all my kids too, so they dont suffer? I know this is extreme and subject to our personal sentience not theres, but you can only ever conceive things from your own perspective. Protein itself can be got from lots of places, its not unique to animals or meat. I agree the agricultural evolution did great things for society on the whole throughout history, but history is as it is, just because it was once great doesnt make it so forever. If we now poses the technology and scientific knowledge needed to switch from meat to alternatives that offer essentially the same nutritional value, why should animals be tortured and murdered needlessly because people are too lazy to change diet (for the educated but less willful) or people that are conditioned in a society where meat *tastes* great and therefor disregard the alternative (i say this because i believe if the whole planet was raised on just as tasty but slightly different alternatives, the general public would react in much the same manner when tasting meat, they would say its not as good as this *alternative* and that it has a weird texture, i think theres a branch of psychology associated with this sort of indoctrination). Whatever, You know, I know, We all know that murder is not a straw man argument; Its the single basis to the debate, things like cruelty, nutrition, incarceration and food costs are all straw man in comparison.

Im not gona trawl through documentaries and who knows how many web pages finding evidence for my claims if you dont feel murder is fundamentally wrong....its a pointless exercise and you would have been best answering the original question with, "no, its not acceptable to force your ethics on others who do not share your concern with animal murder and cruelty". If you dont agree with the actual basis for wanting to do this then the real debate is being drowned out by white noise...... The actual debate is "Can forcing somebody to do something be right?" I know you agree with getting rid of cruelty and i presume giving animal freedom, but not murder?, Ill find your evidence if it would persuade you theres a better way... I wont, let them kill their own meat....if they need it, they can surely do their own dirty work? I'll look into though chief, where theres will theres a way.

I'm am sorry but i didnt once mention the ethics of eating meat in the OP only the ethics of killing, caging, injecting and other cruelty associated with meat production persay....the original question is....is that for the "humans that dont have the will power, curiosity or empathy to care for animal cruelty?", should the choice be taken away from them. In the same ethical sphere as should the choice of taking drugs be taken away from drug addicts? or, should the choice of murder be taken away from psychopaths? (this is the main point, any red herrings are the result of other red herrings that werent related to the OP) Obviously ive gone to extensive lengths explaining my own opinions on why eating meat is not ethical, however this is off track for the main question. If you HONESTLY require proof that rice is cheaper than meat and that veg is healthier than processed meat...i will, i promise, supply your needs. However i think we can both agree these are superficial in relation to ethically making the choice of stopping murder when its unnecessary. I admit i know nothing about vitamin B12 and based on the fact you didnt bring it to the debate, i presume you didnt either mooey....your just pulling on straws really. At this point, all i can say is, if you believe that animal murder is a necessity of survival and not the process of a corrupt society we can not debate this issue any further. However if you do agree that at some ethical level that slaughtering incarcerated animals is wrong but but you believe theres no other options, i will indeed, as requested, show you what other options exist. I will show you how the raw materials and production costs of sustaining animals is more than is gained in the nutrition of the animals. I will show you alternative healthy, affordable and ethically sound diets, i will even put exerted time and effort into finding alternative ways of getting B12 and how cost productive the whole procedure would be. Let me know.

Now you've made it philosophical, is there a pure "right" and "wrong"? or do we define them by how it makes us feel? I'd argue the latter, the subjective collective consciousness create laws based on this very thing, its not that killing another human or smoking cannabis is "wrong", it just has follow on effects that can and do make us feel "bad"..... Whatever makes me feel "bad" will be ethically wrong for me. Eating meat doesnt make you feel bad because you dont realise your inadvertently being cruel to animals and murdering them, if you had to kill the animal, especially if you had raised it, i presume, or hope, would make you feel bad, and hence makes it ethically wrong. This spin of "extreme" you keep trying to label me with, its the only way to ethically understand whether the whole process is right or wrong. You have to put yourself in the same situation, raise some cattle and murder it yourself.....someone has too. If someone who made your car used the wrong component in its creation (like the wrong metal on the break pads) the car itself could be a death trap and you would tell them to stop making this car and wait until you can get the right component. If your TV has a loose wire it could short circuit, if you wardrobe is nailed instead of screws it can fall apart. One weak link can break the chain. If murder is not needed then doing it is wrong. (i deal with the "needed" a bit more lower down) My answer is that i wouldnt kill hitler; theres more philosophy behind the rise of nazi idealism than a single figure head, they were arguable the most intellectually, scientifically, politically, philosophically and industrially advanced nation on the earth, why not force the tools of their language, music, science and poetry on the world that made it so? push things forward at a faster rate....ovcourse some of the things that happened during ww2 put a huge spin on the whole rise of the germanic empire from prussia to fascism. I dont want debate nazi politics, thats history and so should stay where it is, people can interpret things however they wish. The murder of animals for the sake of ignorance, arrogance, lack of will or money is happening on huge scale, incarceration on a large and cruelty on average is common, this is all happening as we think these very thoughts. Unhealthy? almost all fast food is Unhealthy, We can obviously deal with being unhealthy, 73% of U.S. Population Overwieght or Obese This Obese thing doesnt sound very healthy to me, Unhealthy is a dwarfed counter argument for the cruelty and murder of animals. If people stuck to fresh fruit, veg and dairy (like eggs and milk), they'd be alot more healthy than they are now.

I dismissed his argument because poor people eat the bad cuts, the processed meat which are the nasty parts of the animals which dont have much nutritional value and are what are cheapest. "No plant produces vitamin B12 so you are proposing to kill all the people who can not afford the synthetic material.", im pushing it to extremes? your claiming a single vitamin is now going to be the cause of death for poor people? how is it vegans survive? no fruit, nut, mushroom or veggie contains a vitamin which you claim will kill poor people? really? REALLY? Im not pushing it all to extremes, not all animals are tortured, caged and get there young slaughtered in front of them.....but its common knowledge that it happens frequently, hidden camera's and worker accounts show it to be true, its not as if they try hiding it. Animals die anyway, if they starve and dont reproduce due to lack of purpose so be it, ive already said that, they shouldnt exist solely to be murdered regardless of being caged and tortured. Cows can exist for milk without being forced to be pregnant constantly and chickens can provide eggs without being caged. Meat itself isnt required for survival and infact it isnt that great at all, subjectively ive only found *game* to be rich in flavor (the ones that live free) other meats are quite bland in comparison, sometimes slightly salty and slightly unique. A sikh curry has far more flavor than a mcdonalds burger and can easily be adjusted to taste. Things like eggs (of which i buy local free range and are hardly more expensive, 20% ish) offer most the nutrients meat does. Eat an egg a day and stop murdering sentient animals.... In my last post i only had a slight dig when talking about dogs, the rest was all very mild, i offered counter arguments for my own beliefs and showed how my solution would work better than progressive education. I apologize if you mis-understood me. P.S i have no moral high horse, im immoral by nature, i eat meat......im just offering a solution.

Wasnt aware pigs ears, eyes and bollocks had any nutritional value.....i stand corrected.... I apologize for my rash and somewhat tempered response mooeypoo, i do realise and understand that given a certain scenario, animals can still live a relatively content (or would so seem to them) life and still be used as a form of food for us. However the amount of bureaucracy involved with the legislation would mean the animals that are and will still be tortured in the mean time, which could be a century.... I offer you this though: What right does anyone have to kill another animal because you like its flavour? if ofcourse you dont need it to survive.... I have a right to a shelter or roof because its a trade which doesnt cause pain or cut a life short, i could also build the roof myself from raw materials (which i'd love to do). I think the story is different if you have to raise a pig and kill it yourself? How does dog taste? meaty i suppose (sorry im doing it again, but pigs and cows have both shown high levels of sentience and intelligence). Lets evaluate some hypotheticals and see which comes out on top, from my perspective ofcourse (though i hope i give them all a fair trial) 1) All cruelty to animals stop 2) Animals are given freedom 3) Alternative forms of nutrition become widely available and as cheap 4) Alternative forms of nutrition is varied and tasty 5) OP, edit the DNA or use a molecule in the feed to make meat dangerous for human consumption. If 1 alone is true, animals are still caged and subject to incarceration, still murdered and still likely to be subdued to watching its offspring be killed. (i say caged in that they are not physically tortured, not abused or beaten, just made to stand very still) If 2 alone is true, they are still being tortured and killed prematurely BUT would force the price of meat up alot making 3 and 4 true. If 1 and 2 is true, they are still murdered BUT this would also make meat extremely expensive and alternatives a more probable form of nutrition. The poor would be forced to eat alternatives. The wealthy get the choice of eating meat, which is somewhat unfair. However this particular argument is just swings and roundabouts, the wealthy get nicer houses, bigger TV's, faster cars etc anyway. If 3 || 4 or 3 && 4 are alone true, animals will still be subjected to cruelty, murder and being encaged. Being tasty alone doesnt change the cost, cost and availability alone doesnt change general consensus or taste. Even with taste and cost together the ignorant and arrogant will carry on as usual, the one that dont know ((and)(or)) care will carry on buying meat. If all other than 5 are true, then thats a quite fair system, other than the fact animals will still be murdered, they wont be tortured, they will live freely and will get murdered alot less if alternatives are cheaper and as tasty. HOWEVER to get here, if we ever naturally got here, could take a very long time. In the mean time animals are still getting tortured and murdered. If 5 and only 5 is true, 3 and 4 would become true because no meat would make alternatives arise, new business opportunities arise etc, 1 and 2 would also become true so by default animals (in "our" food chain) would stop being tortured and would be free (or not existent due to lack of purpose, but great, so what? if its only purpose is slaughter then so be it). and to top it all off, no animals will get murdered in the making of this video. The quick and painless solution is to force alternatives to be cheaper and tastier by making it so its pointless in murdering animals. If you hit 90% of all meat production with rogue batches of feed that made them inedible, almost overnight other food would have to become available, even if it meant people would have to learn to cook rice or pasta......ALSO this is the quickest way of getting to the goal. if you hit 90%, 10% is still in circulation, only the rich will afford it, it can only reproduce at a particular rate so the alternatives would arise faster than a cattle boom. (knock it down to 2% if needs must). Above and Beyond, i'd personally give the green light to feeding the whole population this molecule, create a nice burger and open up my own branch of meat free burger joints. Again i find that if 1-4 were all true, that would be an ethically acceptable solution, i just propose a solution to simultaneously make all 4 true. I think we both agree animals shouldnt be tortured, im not sure your stance on physical freedom, in some ways i see it as psychological torture. I also think we both agree that cheap and tasty alternatives should be available. I think we disagree on how we get rid of torture, i personally dont see it happening ever with the current consensus and if it did ever happen it would be a long journey. I also dont think we agree that murdering a living animal is ethically wrong either (if its for taste and not survival). Finally i dont think we agree that if a solution should show itself, forcing it upon the general public is right. Ive tried to explain the easiest way of making torture stop, the easiest way to stop mass murder and also shown how we are already *forced* into particular laws so one more should make no difference, especially not one with quite some ethical basis behind it.

It stops alot of it, i couldnt put a number on it, but alot more animals are used for meat than are used domestically. The practical must include 3 aspects: Do you need the meat to survive? Can you kill your own meat? Had that animal had a free life? If the answer is "no" to ANY, you should NOT be eating meat, however if you tick all boxes, i would be *forced* to agree with you. Im not totalitarianly vegetarian or vegan, i super impose criteria which if isnt met, make you liable to some level of cruelty. Indeed it is, where (in western society, which accounts for alot of the meat production) alternatives exist, animals shouldnt be prematurely killed or kept in captivity (regardless of torture in this case). How would you like an alien to put you in a box your whole life, make you physically or artificially pregnant and then kill your children in front of you? (implying they have a fairly high level of sentience) I blindly refute this, explanation below; In my country (and yours i'd bet), noodles, rice, potato's, eggs, bags of mixed vegetable (home brand stuff) and even the vegetarian alternatives are cheaper, you could even argue that fish are fine given that there not as sentient as mammals. The branded alternatives are more costly, but if everyone on the planet was forced to not eat meat, quorn and other alternatives output would greatly increase and price decrease (in a similar fashion to the way the cost of computing power decreases). That aside, for those that are *able* but still decide to eat meat (like everybody when you factor in how UNHEALTHY fast food and cheap meat is), well what then? Your answers on a floor in the slaughter house, or in a battery pen. Your philosophy is flawed, you seem educated enough, but yet still eat meat? until you cut of there nose and put them in a box where they cant even scratch the area there nose used to be, they aint gona change. Some people are happy not knowing what evils lurk in this society; and all for the sake of money that will buy them a new game, pack of cigs, bottle of wine or phone. Kids have no choice but to go to school, people are born into a society where they get forced into a prison cell for taking narcotic substances. I didnt get a vote if i wanted to go to school, i didnt vote on whether i should be allowed to grow my own cannabis. NOPE. And by this token, to say you *shouldnt* force something upon somebody, when theres a list as long as piece of string that already forces me *not* to do something, or consequently be subjected to capital punishment, is quite ridiculous. How do you know its not human nature (for some humans atleast) to want to be intoxicated with narcotics? and then who are you to take that nature away? Well if that liberty can be taken, so can the liberty of eating meat, even if it is human nature. We cant toxicate our minds, but we can torture animals? Real smooth. (in fact almost every law is human nature, its not illegal to fuck a dog or to eat someone elses shit because that doesnt naturally happen (i hope lol)) This isnt a specific dig at you, just society in general relative to your argument, if your gona debate that people should have a choice, you have to defend the fact they should equally have the choice to grow cannabis or not attend school. This whole debate can stretch onwards to geological manipulation by the IMF and the unfair capitalist system, but it must start somewhere, by simply not buying meat you are doing a small and easy part....and if you still eat meat, you shouldnt be......

Intelligence doesnt dictate sentience, though elephants are probably more sentient also. His argument would be that killing an animal of higher sentience is less ethical than that of a lower, such as farming humans for meat against farming cows. We'd obviously declare ourselves more sentient, though the proofs in the pudding.

The population calculations totally discount for war; disease; famine; genocide; natural disaster; etc etc, stopped watching at that point...sorry

Because red smells like grass, obviously. I personally hate the taste of circles.

In what circumstance would you need to? where is agriculture *impossible* ?

a hillbilly or hobo

What do you mean by TOE? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_offload_engine?

Pathfinding is one of the most basic concepts in AI, just google A* algorithm or pathfinding for more info. We is my university. Yeh python is higher level than c / c++, i have worked with python (learn python the hard way) a few years ago so can pick the syntax up quickly. I presume your talking about github or subversion? we use subversion for graphics this semester and used it for high performance computing last semester, ive done multi-threaded scala, c and java applications and distributed scala and c (code runs on multiple machines + threads over a network). The actual application i used openMPI for was a graphical line finding algorithm used in ray tracing. I understand the basics of random number generation (not being random), its briefly explained in K&R C book. My current modules are Advanced software engineering (fixing broken code / making a compiler) & Computer graphics and AI (working with trig / polygons & computational decision making algorithms) Whats the actual purpose for this AI, to be self conscious? to do tasks for you? etc etc check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_(novel) (this is an interesting book, its related to computational recursion and AI) As for numbers, im currently trying to link 3 dimensional space to a polarized circle graph and show how time exists as the last 1/4. Also how the existence and relationship between integers create 3-d space and circles relation to our 2-d irrational representation of it, but this will take some time. I'll work with you, i can atleast make you a GUI, if your using github then link me and ill branch your trunk. Also what's the vocab i need?

Sure it is; Nature is God Science is the Bible and Math is Gods language.

Ill try find some solid evidence to support the fact that the overall production cost of sustaining meat is less than can be gained by using all the resources used to put into an alternative form of nutrition (like wheat etc). Until i can find the data, do you not support the fact that "a bit of bad for the greater good" is not the best solution? Remember this food chain isnt supplying the starving anyway, its supporting the rich and ignorant. The poor still starve, animals still get tortured. and to most extents and purposes, the switch can be instantaneous but needs to be forced.

Okay i understand and appreciate your explanation of the sub atomic and atomic models we use; However i question its validity for scientific purpose. As you say, flipping a coin gives either heads or tails, 1 time 1 answer, on average a probability will arise for heads and tails HOWEVER; the point still remains that given a single smallest measurement of time, it is either coming out heads or tails, although we may perceive it as being heads and tails simultaneously, in an exact scientific way, it will only ever be one or the other. To be honest, im claiming the process that creates an atom also creates the universe, the lifetime or cycle of the smallest atomic particle (or atom) could mirror our universe, but because of the way we perceive time in relationship to the atom and our universe it gives us results that are miss-interpreted and the forces used to explain these relationships are actually uniformally the same. What proof would be needed? a simulation of the lifetime of the universe with the current physical laws? or using sub atomic?

I'd be interested in helping, however AI is a very large discipline, i actually start a module on it soon (mainly pathfinding though). I dont have a great deal of experience in python but its an intuitive language so i should pick it up quick enough to help i think. (we use c, java and scala) I once wrote a detailed account of what i thought AI required, i think i came up with 7 or so key aspects such as self learning, emotions, memory, language, purpose etc but never put any of it into code (at the time i couldnt code). I still dont understand what you meant when you said it would become evident when i get the python interpreter up?

Im not sure how much pull you can take from the push of animal cruelty, any large scale meat production will at some level have an animal being tortured to some degree, whether you want to debate the animals sentience is still somewhat regardless of its nonexistant freedom and obvious cruelty. The only other argument i could throw down is that in large scale meat production the lifestock feed actually accounts for alot more nutritional value than is harvested from the animal, so you'd possibly be replacing a food deficit with surplus. Wild animals would not be touched, only en-caged animals, rendering large scale animal production useless. One final issue you raised was creating an *alternative, cost-effective* replacement for meat, im all for it, but to use the idiom i already quoted "what you dont know wont hurt you", basically implying even when cost effective alternatives exist (which do already) people are so set in the way they view meat that they dont or wont even try it, or say its rubbish when they do try it or wont try it through ignorance or arrogance. What other options are there?

Thanks for the reply. As for GR and euclidean geometry, either or both are wrong, in some form they must be. If they dont fit together and one contradicts the other, then something must be missing. Sorry; to clarify, this accounts for every law which makes reality, every piece of math we use or can be used. Anything that has no practical application need not exist (not everything in math reflects reality, that which doesnt, will not). A finite system is a suffice definition of perfect, until i can demonstrate fully what i mean. Im to tired now, I'll get some sleep and make a diagram explaining the question tomorrow. Yes both the concept of irrational (infinite) and circle geometry are currently beyond my reach If i cant comprehend infinity i must come up with another solution to fill its place hence the use of a *perfect* system.

This reply is interesting but ambiguous at best. Are you talking about AI? HCI? Processing capability? Higher level thinking? The perplexity of AI is overbearing, the rest i can deal with. Do computers only work in 2-d mathematics? Do our minds work in 3-d mathematics? Does reality work in 4-d? By python gui are you referring to the shell interpreter or an actual gui?

I was under the influence we observe it using some form of magnetism not our physical sight (limiting us to the electro magnetic spectrum) What i meant was if you were to transform into an atom and exist as a conscious atom, you would be observing an atom in its natural form, you would be seeing hows it shell is created and the wars the shells are currently partaking in, if you shrink yourself again to become a boson or such, you would see the inner nature of the atom and start seeing your own part in the atoms creation. This is only possible because you would be perceiving time at the same level as was the smallest detectable particle, any time scale above and the data can only be interpreted because your missing data. For a stupid example, its like measuring the 100 meter race in only seconds, if 2 different people ran the race in 2 different locations and both got 10 seconds, you'd declare they were the same speed, but if we use milliseconds we will see a different picture, because someone will be atleast a millisecond faster. So in other words whatever your measuring time in will dictate the nature of the results, patterns may emerge but again the pattern isnt whats truly happening. What are photons made of?? WHY is there a lower bound? for the life of me, the only sense i make of the sub atomic model is that at some level its a recurring pattern of our own physical reality (and in fact our reality is dictated by its (lets say hydrogen)). so the sub atomic laws, or sub sub atomic laws etc etc are at some base level exactly the same as ours and infact create our laws.

Space-time or GR contradicts the 5th euclidean postulate, which makes it wrong. Engineers use mathematics for real purposes, though maths itself isnt bound to reality the only maths we actually need to know, understand and discover are bound to reality, all the rest are pointless probabilities that didnt and wont exist, else again they are bound to reality (so all maths that isnt relative to reality is void of purpose (also if we create an equation or formula mathematically that isnt directly related to reality it could be very detrimental if used in certain physical situations like the hadron collider or a nuclear submarine)). You claim im "spouting nonsense" then continue to say that im defining positive integers, explain whats nonsensical about my briefly informal definition? I'm currently working on a thesis that deals with this perfect mathematical system i purpose, it has a direct relation to shapes and topological math aswell as the nature of circles and time. Perhaps once ive finished i'll drop it on here and you can pick it apart, but for now positive integers will do to show how circles dont work within the nature of reality. Just a little side question im confused with...from origin on the double positive part of a polar circle graph, how do we calculate the co-ordinates for the first half of a sine wave in terms of degree's? as in were working with a 90 degree right angle origin and were trying to account for or calculate the points of a semi circle, which is 180 degrees? if the answer is splitting the angle into .5's how small can we split angles? if the answer is relative to one axis representing 3-d (some measurement of energy (mass, speed, force etc)) and the other representing time (so this right angle is a representation of 4-d) then why are the vectors connecting the vertices curved and not 2-d lines? (as the crow flies so to speak) I still cant quite comprehend how a circle fits into reality, even based on the fact that only having 3 digits of pi is a good enough approximation of reality to use for engineering purposes, how can it be infinite?? there must surely be some cut of point where a fractal pattern emerges? such as an infinite regression based on recursion (a single base unit).

Okay so hypothetically speaking, if we could make it so animals become poisonous for human consumption via editing its DNA / feeding it specific molecules that make it un-edible but perfectly safe otherwise (I.E some harmful bacteria / virus for humans but totally safe for the animal). For the humans with philosophical idioms such as "what you dont know wont hurt you", is it ethically sound to take choice away from humans that dont have the will power, curiosity or empathy to care for animal cruelty? Based on the ethics that killing animals, caging animals, injecting artificial hormones and pure cruelty from stupid individuals etc etc is ethically bad? is forcing a solution good? is it physically possible? thx.