Mr Skeptic

OK, here's one, but it has a very large if... If we are able to create tiny black holes, and if Hawking radiation exists (I don't think it has been observed yet, though scientists are quite sure it exists), then we would have a power source that could use any matter as fuel, and produce no radioactive wastes. It would be a little dangerous, perhaps, but very useful.

Well, if what we have achieved so far counts as communicating with chimps, then I'd have to say they are very stupid. Their ability to communicate with us is extremely limited, leaving open the possibility that much of their intelligence goes unnoticed.

You misunderstood me. I'm quite capable of having a conversation with a mute person, even with someone who is mute, blind, deaf, and mostly paralyzed (I could use Morse code). But if I am not able to communicate with a chimp, how would I know that they are capable of abstract thought? With humans, the easy communication makes this very easy. Without almost any communication, all sorts of puzzles would have to be made, and abstract puzzles are hard to do. OK, I'll have a look. I suppose you could call visual classification to be abstract, but is limited in scope (not generalized). Again, though, it does not say that they have generalized abstract thought. I don't doubt that they are quite capable in specific areas, but humans are the only ones I know that can supplement their natural cognitive abilities to go beyond what we can normally imagine (such as working out the mathematics for a 4D thing even though we can't imagine it). http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/news/inthenews/cognition.html That is quite a large list of stuff to read. I'll have to get back to you on that. No moving of goal posts here. Generalized abstract thought is all I would require (chimps would fulfill my requirement for some empathy). Multiplication is something abstract, but very simple. Anyone capable of generalized abstract thought should be able to learn multiplication. Generalized would mean that the subject matter is not limited in scope. There's a reason that I excluded addition and base 1 math; those are not particularly abstract at all, but based on counting. Yes, we retain the same mechanisms that animals use for counting/adding, so there is little difference there... but as for multiplication, that is unlikely to be seen in chimps because it relies on abstract representation of numbers as opposed to quantities. Well, I still have to look at the vast quantity of links in the Primate Info Net, but I am not convinced. Of course, there are significant difficulties in communicating with and convincing animals to play our little games, but all of the abstract abilities of animals seem to apply only to specific subject areas. Not generalized.

Seems like its a good creed. Its missing direct mention of morality though. I do think that a proper atheist's creed should mention how the atheist chooses his moral codes.

Perhaps people are finding that religion is ... obsolete. We no longer require divine intervention to explain things, our laws and morality are being decided directly or indirectly by the population rather than powerful spiritual leaders. And religion is starting to get in the way of things, like scientific issues with varying degrees of importance (evolution, global warming, biotechnology). Whereas the benefits of religion, social enforcement of morality/laws, people getting together, etc., have been replaced by other alternatives.

These are some very important and relevant questions for today and the future. I will try to answer them. Chemicals do have vital benefits, but overuse and misuse can be dangerous as well. Definitely a net benefit. If we were able to produce crops that are very resistant to pests and able to produce their own nitrogen, they would eventually become unnecessary IMO. Yes, especially the pesticides and herbicides. To some extent... some chemicals are completely benign, whereas "natural" chemicals, which are no different from the equivalent "artificial" chemicals, can be pretty nasty. It does seem like a safe bet to reduce or eliminate the amount of synthetic chemicals we actually eat though. Definitely necessary, but again it is safest if they stay in place and don't end up leaching out of whatever they are in, or not used where they are not necessary. No distinction whether a chemical was made naturally or artificially. The same chemical is the same chemical whether made by man or nature, and anyone who says otherwise is crazy. On the other hand, we can produce different chemicals that are not produced naturally -- it is likely that they are more likely to be dangerous since we are not adapted to them. Chemicals have all sorts of benefits. In terms of farming, they can keep pests and diseases and weeds from decimating your plants, and fertilizers can help you grow more crops than possible otherwise. All of these can leak into the environment, where the pesticides and herbicides can cause some damage to the environment, and the fertilizer can unbalance an ecosystem. A bit of education. Some farmers misuse chemicals, and end up having to use far more than necessary to achieve the same effect, simply because of how they apply it. Research will continue to make future chemicals less harmful and more effective. No, we should be rational. I'd like to minimize my exposure to chemicals, but the need for them still outweighs any harm that they may cause. Perhaps in the future we will be able to genetically engineer crops that are sufficiently resistant to pests, disease, and weeds, and able to produce their own nitrogen. But since that is not the case now, we still need chemicals to help with these problems. Some farming techniques can reduce the use of chemicals, and this may be a good idea. All in all, I'd say we have more important issues to worry about (for example, the costs of banning farming chemicals would be far greater than the benefit it would provide. A better use of that money would be to put it into medical research)

I see what you mean, what with crops genetically engineered to be resistant to certain herbicides. However, stuff like the copper sulfate don't seem to be relevant to this, other than that "organic" foods can sometimes be more scary than GM.

No, even if they know nothing of the subject of particle physics, you could still hold an intelligible conversation about it with them, and they would learn things about particles, despite never being able to see one. No, they won't be teaching you anything about particle physics, but they will still be able to learn and then ask some questions that show they have some thoughts on the matter. I know chimps have some (relatively) impressive problem solving ability, and stuff like visual memory (better than untrained humans). But I wouldn't consider any of these abstract, unless some of those puzzles are non-physical. Could a chimp be taught to multiply, for example (and base 1 does not count)? Anyhow, with the difficulties in communication with chimps, I don't see how we could even ask them an abstract question. But I'd definitely like to see some studies to the contrary. Yes, that is quite true. Unfortunately, intelligence seems to be an attribute required to be a person, so "person" will remain vague as well.

Sorry about that. I had just found an interesting and relevant New Scientist article, and just tacked that onto the end of my post. According to the definition I suggested for person in post 42, "Um, for my purposes, I would consider any entity capable of generalized, abstract thought and some degree of empathy, to be a person," I'd say that chimps are lacking the ability to have generalized, abstract thought. I couldn't talk to them in any intelligible way about, say, particle physics, evolution, or one of Shakespeare's plays. I suspect that John Locke would say that they weren't thinking or intelligent enough. After all, intelligence is a relative term -- I've heard of intelligent fruit flies. Chimps are intelligent compared to most animals, but really stupid compared to people (and yes, I meant people not just humans). But if someone wants to naively take John Locke's definition 'A thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places' without assuming that there is a minimum intelligence for this definition, then anything that is self-aware would qualify. Like ALICE, perhaps.

I'm sorry, but the first thing that comes to mind when you say this is the Darwin Awards. Lots of them feature small motorized vehicles or skis (which tend to have poor safety in the first place). As for rollerskates, that would make for something with no protection, very top heavy, very low base support, and attached to your feet.

Gravitational interactions with nearby stars or planets might change their orbits. Also, how likely is dark matter to bump into itself? I'm thinking of the dark matter as behaving kind of like permanently hot gas, that can't cool and is very unlikely to bump into anything. Or like orbiting dust that again can't bump into much of anything. I was thinking that if it tends to spread out too easily to form a large body or black hole, then a significant portion would tend to spread out enough to reach a black hole. Though it would probably have to go almost straight at the event horizon for it to go in. Or maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about.

Going back to the dark matter/black hole issue, even if dark matter is unable to condense to form a black hole, it should still be able to be sucked into an already existing black hole.

Sure, if you can't tell the difference between everything and something. And it has nothing to do with definition of anything except the Godel Statement.

For religion, the ability to have imaginary friends (or abstract people). The same sort of attributes that allow us to accept and follow a leader that we have never seen. That seems to be what the article says anyhow.

A very good story, but it is based on deceit. In using the term people, he implies that they would at least potentially have been, or be in the future, capable of certain attributes, which it turns out that they don't have. A similar story could be written about, say, bees (it would have to replace the intelligence/planning portion with something else, such as storage of food in preparation for when there is none). It's definitely food for thought, though, especially for those who are very species biased. --- Oh, check out this article about the origin of religion, where Maurice Bloch says that religion is a result of a unique human development of abstract or imaginary people and people groups, such as a god or a clan leader that you've never seen.

OK, then... #2 thing I learned on TV: Some (and that's being nice!) people are stupid.

No, for example I know that statement is false (and how could you say that since you wouldn't know it was true?). What it says is that, a logic language cannot be expressive enough to contain self-referential statements, be consistent (not have contradictions), and be complete (everything is provable/knowable). Basically, that something is unknowable, in said logic language.

While technically true, we're still quite a ways from genetically engineered non-human people or artificially created non-biological people. I'd not consider any animal other than Homo to be a person, though they can definitely be sentient and empathic and somewhat intelligent. On the other hand, humans who wouldn't qualify as a person are much easier to find. All the ones that are missing their brain (literally), for example. Um, for my purposes, I would consider any entity capable of generalized, abstract thought and some degree of empathy, to be a person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium 40K occurs in natural potassium (and thus in some commercial salt substitutes) in sufficient quantity that large bags of those substitutes can be used as a radioactive source for classroom demonstrations. In healthy animals and people, 40K represents the largest source of radioactivity, greater even than 14C. In a human body of 70 kg mass, about 4,400 nuclei of 40K decay per second.[2] The activity of natural potassium is 31 Bq/g. Unfortunately, the half-life of K-40 is in the billions of years, so I don't see any simple way to remove it from the diet.

Hats, shoes, loincloths, clothes, were all worn, or not, by various people groups as necessary in their environment. In the tropics, it was not too uncommon not to wear anything at all, whereas eskimos need a full set of windproof and insulating clothes, including for the head. Sombreros were worn in various hot, sunny places, and are easy to make so I don't doubt that the indigenous people wore them, especially if they knew agriculture.

So, would it be possible to reduce the amount of K-40 in the body? And more importantly, would that have any health benefits? Obviously, radon would be the easiest to reduce.

I don't think so, but you at least have to make sure that it is not inserted in the middle of another gene and deactivates that one. Some enzymes have a feedback loop regulating them. For example, the first enzyme in a chain might have the final product as an inhibitor. Some enzymes don't have this kind of regulation, of course, and are limited by the concentration of substrate. Don't have a clue on that one. It's possible for the enzyme to cut the wrong spot, but I don't know how likely.

I'd just say that we don't have an absolute scale for intelligence, because we don't know what intelligence is. Now, there are several aspects that could be measured or considered to get an intelligence scale: *computing capability (something like FLOPS) *generalizability (part of our brain can work on any kind of problem, but eg the vision center is pretty much for vision related things only) *efficiency (eg, algorithmic efficiency for a simple problem, or comparative ratio of problem solved to computing capability)

#1 thing I learned on TV: People lie. A lot. Even on science shows and documentaries.

It should be possible to make black holes out or matter, or out of antimatter (if you had enough of it). Black holes can be made to orbit each other, thought they will probably emit gravity waves and have a slowly decaying orbit. It is unlikely that a black hole made of antimatter would annihilate with a black hole made of matter, or that there would even be any difference between the two. In any case, a black hole would be far more dangerous than an explosion against any gravitationally large body (one with enough pressure to push material into the center if it were removed). Likewise, a bit of antimatter would make a devastating bomb without being in a black hole. You could throw anything at one of the black holes to move it by conservation of momentum, or you could throw charged material in and then separate and control it electromagnetically.