DevilSolution

Pardon? My answer was a pretty much catch all, either through probability they can have offspring otherwise if they have diverged too far then by splicing the sperm you would be able to achieve this. Thats science as i know it. Or are you referring to time and correlation between differences in genes because i can certainly back it up.

Aww, i thought this was regarding x-men. That statement could be totally void, the time variable of a species splitting from each other and how much they diverge aren't correlative. Some species have needed not to evolve at all in a very long time and some of their closest variations wouldn't have either. Unlike certain species that are forced to evolve because of environmental factors. I don't know the exact genetics on chromosome matching and embryonic development but its likely possible that they could have offspring, however it may take n^x amount of tries (say 10^6 and that's getting them to do business which wouldn't be easy). Its also possible that they have diverged too far an thus it is impossible, in such a case you'd probably only have to slightly modify the DNA of the sperm to get the desired results.

I take it the Q/A is out the window? To be honest i actually don't bother debating creationism with fundamentalists because anyone who takes their religious literature "Literally" instead of "Metaphorically" obviously lack the ability of free thinking. They are or have been indoctrinated and the world is their shade of black and white. So my Q/A was probably very primitive in regards to the intellectual debate creationists currently have concocted, i just covered what i thought other people may have been bored answering time and time again. As far as freedom of speech goes, as i originally stated people should be allowed to ask or say what they believe but only to the extent that they are not covering a topic that has been emphatically answered. That doesn't mean there aren't new debates to be had, just that the older ones have already been put to bed. The same thing applies to physics really, you'll see numerous questions on the big bang, time, e=mc^2 etc ....However generally speaking questions based on the big bang or time have no answer in terms of empirical evidence or data ( such as the big crunch being indeterminate ). Again people may get bored of covering the same material and decide not to reply (thank god swanson an a few others dont or i'd be none the wiser than when i joined). I suppose what is central here is whether a person is debating creationism honestly, if so they must admit to dinosaurs and explain why god forgot to tell any prophets about them....what i mean is, is the person debating creationism a true believer of their religion or someone who take the parts they like. If its the first case they have no argument at all, if its the second then they are not debating creationism of their scriptures but "creation" which is a totally different topic. BTW was the Q/A idea not used because of its content or because everyone agree's that freedom of speech regardless of content should apply?

To put simply, You would want a fast computer for a specialised task, This could be an array of things from creating CGI, Physics simulation, Chemical simulations, Neurological simulations, Number sequencing / pattern finding, AI etc etc. Another reason most normal people buy high spec machines that arent programmers are that they are quick and easy to use. You can load up 3 web browsers with 20 tabs in each while opening 2 word documents, listening to music and having a virtual machine running a test version of an OS you like.......etc What are you two actually discussing? What the best technology is or whether we need it? Something im not sure you mentioned or atleast not fully is the ability to tap into your GPU. With NVidea cards you get access to all the micro processors that specific card has and is called CUDA, it uses a form of grid notation and each ALU has limited capacity, but it can make number crunching extremely easy, i don't know what frequency each processor runs at but firstly there's so many of them that they stack up to be huge and secondly they are a secondary resource to you CPU's, L1, L2 and L3 which used in combination greatly enhance computational ability.

Its usually based on erosion, because most canals and locks were built late 18th century onwards the upkeep was mostly disregarded (water supplies come from huge reservoirs usually and because it rains so much they don't have to cry over spilt milk). One hindrance to this trickle is that it can actually give a fair bit of thrust against a stationary boat, forcing you backwards (such as when your in a queue for the lock). In general most people don't see it as an issue as every time a person goes up or down the lock a huge amount of water is lost, so this trickle is really just a grain of sand on a beach. Breaches are a different matter, they can cause huge problems but now im yattering. One interesting feature of the canals is at some bridge holes (not all but most by me) there are pieces of round metal that are embedded into the side of that bridge, if you see these they usually have lots of indented holes/lines through them, these are from the olden days when the horses rope would rub against the metal as it passed through the bridge hole. Oh and sorry i misread your post, the reason it would stop would be when the water level on one side is less than the other, even marginally. This leak is centrally based between the two shutters so when the water (on the right in that photo) got below the leak it would stop. In fact relative to the pressure and location of the leak the water might slow to trickle if the water on the right decreased even 10cm (as the huge amount of pressure on that gap would rapidly decrease the closer it got to the level of the gap) It's probably some exact ratio or equation. Also i just noticed that the water streaming in is streaming INTO a lock, if someone has just shut the lock (in the past 30 minutes or so) then the water level could be elevating itself and levelling out (as most boaters close the locks as soon as they can). Alternately someone could have gone down the lock and closed the shutters or gate the other end which means slowly but surely the lock will be filling up, again eventually it will fill to the point of the leak and will no longer flow. Finally (and this really is finally), if this is one side of the lock then if you have a leak the other side of the lock also (that's bigger), depending on their ratio's you could very easily find that someone has just come UP the lock and filled it completely, now because the other gate has a bigger leak than these shutters, slowly the water will leave the lock eventually reaching the point where the first set of gates shows its leak. (I'm putting my money on this as the answer mainly because if the ratio is very small, it would take along time for the shutters to show their leak and it would also be almost impossible to actually see, the water level dropping 10cm over a 3 hour period would require a fine set of eyes). Likely a diverge in the canals, one going this the other that. Most splits are usually at junctions but it makes sense they split this way. ( if your gona split the two canals and both are gona require a lock before x amount of miles, putting both locks together would save manpower and time ). (scrap that idea, you'd have one lock and then they would diverge, Unless the locks are different sizes) Alternately one could feed into a dry dock or marina while the other continues. Alternately it could be (or been) an especially busy part of the canals (when they were commercially used) and simply required the use of 2 locks. (he mentioned it being in london so that would be my guess)

I know the questions been answered but you can certainly get magnetic flux interference when measuring current / volts etc Generally speaking the lower the values your trying measure the higher chance of flux interference. I saw alot of this when converting an analogue read that turned the signal into 1032 (10 bit input), even when i knew that the source of current and the exact voltage (should have been) i would get interference on the 5V reads. I did find a way of filtering the noise to an approximation (I.E i found out what the average noise would be and did an equation to balance that average out of the input). I remember it taking ages to figure out why my reads were so different and random though. If you really want a powerful system (and not blow your speakers or fuse) then I'd recommend wiring a sub up to some old / aftermarket high spec speakers. My friend built a full sound system ( 2 huge speakers + sub & amp + decks (vinyl) + mixer ) for about £100. Youd probably have to wire the decks to your computer that way and let the mixer connect you to the system but its not too difficult or expensive. I'd certainly not recommend buying anything new or modifying any lower spec speakers as this will only end up with them farting anyway. Also i remember her telling me its not all about the wattage, as most people think watts define how good speakers are, i think she said Ohms were important maybe for sound quality (less resistant metals = more synchronised sound?), it could have been decibel related, i cant remember for sure and both the above 2 relate directly to wattage i think so that wouldn't make sense but there is some property that shows sound quality, i suppose wattage just defines how *loud* it can actually go.

You getting yourself a laser pen? should be in fashion with the release of star wars.

I'll give you a tip, conceptualizing something, it could be anything, say a trading concept, works ALOT different from how you computationally go about implementing it. I understand you want to talk conceptually about imagination and consciousness of an AI but thats somewhat more philosophical than computer talk. Really you just need to break down your idea's one by one so you have a more solid framework from which to start. I'm not going to lie, having a fully self aware, self conscious AI with an imagination is quite ambitious, but hey, its probably possible.

Ah well i made it, Not sure if it includes all the generic arguments as i dont generally debate creationism. So please reply to modify or add anything that should be in there.

So from general consensus I've decided to make a broad list of Question and Answers for the general topics and arguments constantly reused. If your thinking of starting a new topic relating to creationism and it's listed here then please save your time as scientifically there's no use. However if you have a totally unrelated topic regarding creationism not listed then feel free to open a new thread. Q.1) If you take any living organism and examine it, it has the hallmark of being designed exactly that way for exactly that purpose which means someone must have designed that organism, because there's no other reason a cow or dog would exist otherwise. A.1) This is a prime example of the earth being at the centre of the universe. Your looking at that organism as you are the universe, such that "I'm at the centre of the universe, everything was made for me". That organism's purpose wasn't the product of intelligent design but the product of countless years of adapting to its conditions simply to survive. Q.2) Why would an organism evolve a new sense that the organism has never had before? How would it know to evolve this sense? Hence someone must have designed such a complex organism. A.2) The answer is that the new sense was brought about via a random mutation in the transfer of DNA, and because the mutation helped that species survive, it then manifested throughout the populous of the species killing out the old one or branching off into new species eventually bearing little resemblance to its predecessor. Q.3) Throughout the universe are repeating patterns of complexity that correlate so uniquely that it's impossible that it could be the process of randomness. Hence someone must have designed such a complex system. A.3) It's true that if you look throughout the universe you will find patterns of complexity and its true that these patterns correlate. However its only through selective deduction that these patterns correlate, You have decided exactly which patterns to look for and correlated them with the exact same pattern you were looking for, You haven't correlated those patterns against other complex patterns. Hence such a pattern doesn't repeat uniquely, it only repeats because you are only looking for that pattern. Q.4a) There are complex biological systems that could ONLY come from some higher design, for example the eye is such a complex organ that it's existence couldn't come from any amount of evolutionary steps. Hence there must be a creator. A.4a) This unfounded concept stems from the misinterpretation or understanding of evolution itself, evolution can make big leaps in a short space of time or it can progress very, very slowly over thousands of generations. With the very complex organs we often find that there was a big leap and then lots of progressive steps in which the organ correlates itself for its own purpose. This is why an eagle has vision 4-8 times the ability of a human. Eagles (and birds alike) needed that sense to be correlated to that extent so it can find pray while in fast motion, therefore the eagles with better sight will feed their offspring while eagles with poorer vision may not and their offspring will die. Humans don't need that level of vision to survive so have never evolved beyond our needs. Q.4b) There are complex systems beyond the realms of human comprehension such as the brain (mind) or the human body as a whole. Therefore it must be designed by a greater power. A.4b) This is a form of irreducible complexity whereby you make the assumption that just because we cannot comprehend a system to the full extent at this current moment in time, it must therefore require something with much higher comprehension to design it. Again the simple truth is that just because we cannot perceive or understand the utility of a system does not mean it isn't a process of evolution or alternately that we are not evolved enough to comprehend that system. Q.5) God created everything so God must have also created evolution. A.5) As there is no proof of what god created or when, we can therefore say only that evolution is a simple process. To suggest that evolution is a process designed by your god is ad-hoc and reciprocal of any process you wish to include in your "updated" version of your religion. Q.6) Evolution is only a theory and therefore means its not necessarily true, So we could have been created and evolution could be wrong. A.6) There are alot of theories in science, some of which have little to no evidence and are disregarded, some are based on idea's that are very hard to prove in a lab, it may surprise you to know that some of these theories are used all the time in your day to day life such as satellite television or mobile phones. But you don't question whether they are true or not because they work. Evolution is similar, it's the strongest theory we have in genetic biology that explains all the different variations of life around us. It has lots of evidence supporting it but unfortunately the entire jigsaw is not complete so we use it on its logical merits and huge amounts of supporting evidence. Q.7) The universe exists and we exist therefore there must be a creator. A.7) Yes the universe exists and so do we but does the scientific data correlate with the texts of your religion? Does your religion say the universe was created 14 billion years ago and basic life on earth 3.8 billion years ago? If not then which ever flavour of religion you follow, the science behind what you *might call creation and the creation in your scriptures are not the same. Neither time wise or form of creation. (science see's creation as the emergence of energy from a infinitely dense particle) Q.8) If god created the universe who created God? A.8) This is a rebuttal to creationism from an atheist's perspective, It essentially leads to circular thinking / logic and means "The creator isn't God, because the creator must also have been designed", It's a paradox and also recursive. If you wish to start a topic regarding any of the above then be warned most scientists take evolutionary theory as their premise which contradicts most creationist arguments. If you feel however you have something new to offer then open a topic. Also to anyone else reading this who feels i should add or amend any of the statements then just reply below and i'll modify as required.

I don't mind creating it if its the general consensus

Sorry what is your disease and symptoms? There's a big problem in genetics at the moment in so much as we don't fully understand junk DNA. The approximation of genes in our DNA is about 20,000 which is approximately 1 to 1.5% of our entire DNA. Now of the non-coding DNA we know (i think) around 20% of junk DNA is made from old viruses embedding themselves into our code for their own survival purposes. So essentially the remaining 78% or so DNA is neither a gene or legacy DNA. So what is it? Most agree that about 2% is mRNA which are the messenger RNA's that essentially tell ribosomes which proteins to make. Then we have micro RNA which we believe act as triggers for the gene expressions themselves, in fact acting as multi-switch operators for genes, controlling the ribosomes to another extent by telling it how much of a protein to build, when to start building, how long this protein should be etc.....This class of RNA is predicted to be atleast the size of Gene DNA itself if not more. (this class of RNA i think may relate to your condition specifically, if this miRNA is misfiring, it could be mis-triggering gene-expressions, extending proteins or not making them at all).... Finally you get interference RNA, i dont know or understand a great deal about interference RNA other than it acts in a similar fashion to miRNA in that it can control the size of protein creation, I think this type of RNA is called RNAi and when it's used on or in a sequence its siRNA, i'm guessing this is a sub category of miRNA but again i dont really know. So to summarize, there may be a explicit gene expression of a disease in your DNA, there could be a problem with a specific mRNA not ending with the right codons or such or there could be a malfunctioning miRNA or set of miRNA (such as siRNA). Unfortunately not a great deal is known about the functionality of miRNA within the bigger picture of the DNA, so this would be hard to identify, especially any misconfiguration of such a complex system. Also i dont know what process takes place that give ribosomes the soup of amino acids (from food to cell) but there could be an essential missing link in the chain that determains the levels of amino acids in the ribosomes that are trying to express that particular gene. Do you know what biochemical process this chemical "Isotretinoin" has on the cellular level? WGS will be able to tell you whether the disease was dormant or not, im not sure it will tell you whether this chemical triggered the disease or not. NEWS JUST COMING IN, your not the only one! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34904556 If you do a google search quite a few recent results come up. This actually came on TV not long after i wrote my reply. Have you spoken to the company that sells this "Roaccutan" as an acne cure, by the looks your not alone. They will probably have to pull it from the shelves.

I still think a sticky thread that uses a Q/A format, covering each issue in enough detail should be made. It should then be discretionary (to the mod) whether a new thread regarding creationism has or questions new material, otherwise the thread can be locked with reference to the specific Q/A of the sticky. That would be my solution, either that or choose to not engage in the thread. That way the fundamentalists are free to engage with each other. Nature is God and science is my bible

The core issue here is the "use" of ethics and experiments. If your experiments lead to a positive outcome you can always argue of the unethical methods involved condone the outcome, however if the experiments lead to potential negative outcomes then the ethics go against the human condition. For example do human ethics keep up with scientific advances? If we make a scientific breakthrough that can be used unethically and the person with this knowledge isnt ethical then its a detriment to humanity not a contribution. From a political view nuclear power is a good example of this scientific advancement having the potential to be detrimental to humanity. From a sociological view computers and social networks are a good example of how technology can be detrimental to socialising. From a psychological view, desensitisation through different mediums can be detrimental to the human condition. All of these come from scientific and technological advancements in which the human ethics may not have caught up.

Does that make any being with enough neurons and sensual inputs conscious? Where do divide sentience with consciousness? and would you scale consciousness? for example does a monkey have a higher level of consciousness than a cow?

The reason is people nit pick your post looking to find errors so they can quickly dismiss the integrity of the rest of your post. As far as your OP goes and the further extensions to it, it all seems rather Pseudo "thinking" on the subject. In one of your original statements you claim to "know enough about AI to not sit in the neurosimulation camp of AI, but you dont seem to pose many computational answers to the concepts you later relay as AI requirements. I also studied AI and computer graphics as a module of my CS degree and im also interested in philosophy and neurobiology / chemistry. What i'd suggest is that you break down your idea's into simpler concepts so that you can address them computationally. For example as im sure your aware "machine learning" is a huge area of AI. Why dont we look at current approaches to machine learning in relation to some of the more complex idea's you have regarding consciousness and imagination?

It's a strange idea that you totally dismiss a branch of theological debate solely on the basis that the topic reaches the same conclusion. For religious scientists i believe there's a fair debate to be had and for those who are of scientific nature they will follow reason and logic, however for the fundamentalists i'd agrue they are probably not scientists and are here more to debate or enforce there own beliefs as a platform. I'd suggest creating a sticky thread where Q/A style format is used to dismiss or explain the general forms of arguments used in these debates and when any new creationist thread is opened with any of the Q/A arguments, then a moderator refers the thread to that sticky and closes it. IMO there is still plenty of room for debate with "creation" itself, especially from an agnostic perspective where theistic belief of creation isn't the topic of the debate. For example there is scientific and mathematical debates regarding how the universe can exist in or from a mathematical basis or creation itself relates us as humans and our human condition (irrespective of the "creator"). Also freedom of speech should be adhered to within the rules of the forum, if a new user open a topic that older users are tired of seeing and replying to, then simply dont reply?

I have no idea what predates this statement, the brain conceives languages via the process of electrical and chemical signals through various parts of the brain, the format is simply the strength of axons to synapse over spread neurological spheres. The neurological structures allow language to be stored, comprehended and then extended. To say "electrical and chemical messengers isnt the same as the framework of language" is a total misconception. How else do you imagine we store and conceive language? conceptually speaking the neurological pathways connecting concepts must be immense. 25I-NBOMe is radioactive ligand, try it out

I went to seminar on consciousness that involved 4 highly proclaimed professors, each in their own field of expertise. Now throughout the lecture various topics and subjects we're debated but fundamentally none of these experts (one of which co-authored a book with hawking and sounded quite ridiculous) actually agreed or came close to a simple definition of consciousness. Interesting to me was the fact that no one raised the issue of "self consciousness" or "collective consciousness". If you want to understand the way the brain works learn neurology and psychology, but as A.shulgin once said, scientists love to study receptors, inhibitors, agonists, antagonists and reuptake (selectively so), but no one considers the "mind", the conceptual understanding of oneself and being. Your limited to philosophical debate.

I'd look at engineering, it applies LOTS of various forms of mathematics into physical form so your not just staring at abstract trigonometric transformations. I think once you understand transposition and algebra the rest fits in easier. Also try take an interest in trig, like if you can program start making polygons and using transformations, scaling, rotations, etc. This is the basis to computer graphics so you can start making games and shit.....DOPE

If we had no mass, these questions would be obsolete...how strange. I think by definition the relative pull and push force from other planets and the sun keep the solar system in some form of equilibrium.

The rate of discharge will effect the batteries health, so unless you can measure the exact rate of discharge you can only roughly estimate, [math]t = h (\frac{C}{IH})^k [/math] Yeh there is other chemical reactions, namely the ionic charge from anode to cathode and the disintegration of the anode with chemical build up slowly stopping the flow of electrons.

Live in the moment, dont spend time trying to capture it, your brain should do that for you. Also its relative to what your taking pictures of, my sister takes "selfies" all day while i'd only bother if it was a special occasion or seen a nice view......

helicase?

Pictures.....DUHHH