Ben Banana

Algorithms in their plain nature don't "define" anything, and I thought we were talking about 'Artificial Intelligence,' not 'Artificial Life.' ... I bet people are anxious to share their ideas, though I doubt anyone who's discovered anything valuable would share it plainly in a silly forum-thread such as this.

Non-lethal... ? I'd rather die.

@Modnote It's not a silly out-of-blue remark. "Jung's interest in European mythology and folk psychology has led to accusations of Nazi sympathies, since they shared the same interest." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_jung#Response_to_Nazism There's a variety of material which discusses this specifically with regards to Carl Jung. This is to illustrate the image I see: a very flawed psuedo-scientist.

"Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?" That's exactly how science should be. That's why it's different. Also, we should realize the difference between a framework for understanding and a materialistic assertion. Science usually seems quite permissive as long as a proposed framework does not cross with materialistic assertions too aggressively. Compare "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" with "String Theory." Now imagine the consequence of particle physics being handled alike these, e.g. consider the Higgs Boson. The 'Higgs Boson' was a very materialistic proposition in the sense which means it was a hypothesis with a high necessity for proof of being materialistically real. Of course, Isaac Newton tested his ideas, but in a very different sense: for confirming a more abstract range of consistency between his theory and reality. Due to the nature of his theory, the only fact which mattered was whether his theory validly applied to accurately predicting and modelling phenomena in reality; not whether it completely and materialistically corresponded to reality. We should take issue with theorists who construct mere theory (not solutions) with irresponsibly arbitrary constituents. Theory which begins as a solution for predicting phenomena is acceptable, and theory which begins as a machine for discovering materialist facts which may serve as gateways to validating more predictive theory is acceptable too. It is unacceptable when a theory begins as a machine to assert pretty materialist facts in such an arbitrary way that the theory may just as well be designed to gloriously solve all other theorists' frustrations with a magic pill. Then the fanatics dance.

I see no reason why voters would favor Romney beside the forces of their strong ideological grasps. I'm trying to figure this out. Honestly, could rigney come back and concisely tell us why Romney is so great besides Obama being not so great? Could there be more aspects about Romney to perceive favorably beside an ideological contrast towards Obama -- which is, furthermore, so vague it seems subjective to the voter's perception? I only manage to see this favor caused by a force of ideology rather than reasoning with concrete principles. Now to keep myself clear, what kind of ideological chords? Unfortunately, I can not see much principle substance behind Romney. I am curious to understand what exactly rings in rigney with his favor towards Romney. I'm reading through the topic and I still fail to see his appeals to Romney elaborated. I'll admit this (my assumption regarding the influences of ideological forces) is just a guess. I am a dummy, so rigney better spoon feed me with his applesauce and get it through my head. Though meanwhile, I reason that favor for Mitt Romney as the next U.S. President is just idiotic. EDIT: @moth Well to be honest, I really didn't intend it to be rhetoric in a public manner. I liked the idea (it was more of personal rhetoric) -- though you're right, I should have kept it to myself. As well, I should think through my personal-teases before sharing them.

Haha really? That's completely invalid. I like to hang my graphs upside down because it simply makes them easier for me to read. Are that insisting that I go to college and learn to read graphs correctly? What a scum bag. How dare you!

Unfortunately, no. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said that.

Yes, I meant, answers have likely already been suggested/asserted & discussed.

The various stores of culinary resources within my residence.

Oh yes, and just because 'God' is a completely arbitrary, and even ridiculous concept brought by your (possibly imposed) religious involvement "doesn't mean he isn't there." It's all dependent on your willingness to continue the game of asserting such a being in existence. That's actually not faith.

I'm picky with my diet too. Unfortunately, if I only ate what I wanted, I would starve. We have no good food here! Agh!

I'm knowledgeable enough about all sciences to deliver good answers to other members of this forum.

I like making prompts, because they help people (me atleast) think: What determines the chance that a politician yields resolution by a certain issue? You must be asking, rather: Does Mitt Romney understand the principles necessary to solve your issue? Well, which of ourselves understand the principles necessary? How so? What do you think are the principles behind a healthy economy, and how well are these supported by evidence? These questions have probably already been answered somewhere within this thread, but I'm just throwing this out there. Time to read 7 pages.

I would like to point out, this is the exact same case as with Adolf Hitler. Also, Jung's manner of approach to 'scientific' and 'philosophical' matters has many similarities to Hitler's.

iNow's name says it all.

Yes, the sunlight is shining on you then, but the event had a cause which originated previously. The sun may be producing photons at the instant while you lay in the grass, but perhaps you move into a building before that light may directly reach you.

... I'd say, nope. In an extremely arbitrary logic, that may be an axiom. Neither is "thing" rigid enough. Unfortunately, you have no statement to reason with. You cannot question truth here. First, lets be careful about the meaning of "existence." I would say, the image exists now; however, we're not sure whether the image's source exists no more.

I just laughed when I read the title, but it got better.

A "theory" has no correlation to factual standing. Believe it or not, neither does "theorem."

Yep. I speak dolphin. Although you worded it a bit wobbly, yes. Neither do I know anything about thermodynamics, electrodynamics, or whatever sort of field applies to efficient energy consumption. See this post of mine: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65521-flying-cars-will-it-ever-truly-happen-terrafugia-coming/page__view__findpost__p__669471

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcode Some forms of hardware feature reprogrammable microcode.

Too bad techniques of energy production are irrelevant to "energy efficiency." The techniques involved in energy consumption make the appropriately corresponding subject to "energy efficiency."

@ivanv Assembler is not "defined" and wired into the processor. That would be something like microcode. Most modern processors don't have reprogrammable microcode architectures.