polos

I said 'silly' because basically it says: "less intelligent beings evolved into more intelligent beings". Now, this is simply impossible. If you want something less intelligent become more intelligent, you need someone from outside to bring the new intelligence.

It's very interesting that Darwin himself admitted that he faked some of his experiments, just to "make the whole theory work".

So, it's basically very simple: nobody can exclude a perfect Intelligence on the beginning of everything. Call it God, call it how you like, but denying it is not very intelligent...

This is simply not true.

There are many scientific books against the evolution theory. I know that I'm not saying something popular when I claim that to me the evolution theory is simply silly. But I don't care to be popular -- instead I care to accept the most reasonable opinion.

Just look at all the things Darwin "didn't want to know", and the progress which science made since Darwin.

IMO, Darwin is simply not to consider a good scientist, and in Darwins book there are some disgusting racist parts, and discriminating parts against the intelligence of women.

http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=...

So, these are all valid question. If I were a "biological machine", someone would already have called for a "biological" doctor...

Who did convince you of that? Science?

Science is only science, science very often is wrong, and has to correct itself, sometimes decades, or even centuries later.

I know that I'm not a biological machine. I know that there's a voice inside myself that asks many many more questions than any science will ever be able to answer.

Now, where do these questions come from? Certainly not from my brain. My brain is not able to ask questions beyond its own capabilities.

So, let me repeat the initial question: are you a biological machine, and nothing more?

- spontaneously ask itself where it is coming from

- spontaneously ask itself what it will become after its own destruction

- having spontaneous thoughts

- having free will

Why do I say spontaneous? Because our thoughts aren't coming from our mind, but from our soul (that is, from the principle of life, which is invisible by nature).

Come on, these are all obvious things; humans, don't believe blindly in science, science is not a religion(!).

A machine could (in theory) more or less be similar to animals, though.

For example, last night I awoke about 5 times, every single time with a new solution to a current problem.

But before that, I always try to really relax in the evening, for some hour, preferably in nature (and nothing beats the sea).

Lying may(!) bring you some advantage, short-term only; but you always have an alternative way: you can tell something great, without lying, but you need your phantasy for doing that.

So, my dear friend, do you simply lack phantasy?

;)

Now, what does the soul "eat"? Love! In any form, and there are so many.

Depression is actually exploding in our current times, all over the world. How will future generations judge the health state of our current situation? Hmm..

You can pervert anything, and humour (together with real love) is one of the most often perverted (but originally really beautiful) things...

:(

Try to create real humour to tell your own children; it's not that hard -- and it will be real humour.

:)

The old C infrastructure is really outdated already -- you can use C and a very limited subset of C++ (without OO), and be perfectly happy.

For someone, it could perfectly be the other way round:

"Hey, it's perfect, and it's light too! Wow! Now go to h*ll all of you too earth-bound children, while we will continue to fly high in the sky...".

;)

For many aspects it's a huge advantage of CL to not having continuously evolve into something slightly different and only opinionatedly better.

I know both Scheme and CL, and I'll continue to prefer CL for at least the next decade coming, I think.

Meantime, I like all the effort anybody is putting in any kind of Lisp, and I always follow the different attempts (the different Schemes, Arc, Clojure).

What did I (sorry, I meant you :) miss?

Man, you're really waaaay to virtual already...

Go get some life contact!!

P.S. This english computer culture really is able to fool us too badly, making us aliens on our very own planet...

BTW, new stars are 'born' continuously.

Clojure was born as a hybrid of FP and CL for the JVM, as that seemed perfect to the authors personal experience...

Sorry, but I'll not abandon my own way for such a personal preference style (if I only could remember where I already saw this pattern... hm [...]).

I'm perfectly OK with my chosen Lisp system (no, I won't tell you, no war fan I am).

Simply a side note:

We all have written our gender not only in our body, but even in our (invisible) souls.

Now, to all of you thinking that one is able to actually change ones gender: no, sorry, that's not possible.

Your soul will remain the same, and anybody really knowing you, will not note any difference...

If you think you are good, you are not. If you think you have to improve, chances are you will become better.

(Life is baby steps; ask a baby...)

Maybe nobody would believe it nowadays, but TV people (on both sides) were very different then (more attention to details, more patience, more regard to each other).

Every year coming, the whole scene is freezing a little more, they even take away both colors and light nowadays (in current movies), this whole artificial spectacle will finish in the dark...

Come on, that's ridiculous.

(Like the evolution theory, which is completely ridiculous, as it says that a less intelligent being can "auto-evovle" into something more intelligent...)

At this point, any discussion is pointless, as we already completely substitute reality with fiction.

Science always has to be concrete and repeatable (as you well know). You already make my head ache, really badly...

Please remember: science can reach only that far, it has real limits, which nobody is able to extend, and which we all need to respect.

P.S: The principle of any life in Nature is called it's soul, which is invisible, and which only lasts as long as the life persists. So, every plant has its (simple) soul, and science until now has no clue whatsoever what even the simplest form of these souls are consisting of -- as they are, in fact, outside of our physical universe...

My position: science will never ever be able to even come close to Nature (a simple example? Look at the most simple form of live possible: current (so heavily applauded) science has no idea, whatsoever, what even the principle of every live-form is consisting of -- it's called the "soul", BTW).

WWW -- Who Will Win?

;)

  var x = [];
  x['3'] = 3;
  x['"3"'] = "three";	    
  alert(x);

Time is not a measure for intelligence. If it were so, humans could be defined as some of the least intelligent beings on our planet (as they need many many years to finally be adults; in fact, we need to learn so many things; most animals are quite ready when they are born -- ask somebody who knows animals).

As for your speculations of human future: are we talking about science or fiction? Although humans are really good in inventing really fantastical future scenes, that has nothing to do with science -- so let's call it fiction for now...

All of artificial intelligence is based on a one-dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional fact (our physical existence).

DNA, our brain, every bit of information in Nature, always, exclusively, uses all 3 physical dimensions present to store its data, so we never will be able to directly compete with Nature in that fact. Because every dimension present has its own role, and how would you represent that in a simple computer memory (leaving out the fact that computer memory is really huge and really slow compared to the memory systems of Nature).

Do you (personally) know anything about how Nature uses all of the 3 dimensions present, to align its data in a really ingenious and unique way? Do you?

Physically near has a special meaning in our human brain, and influences all the bits of information near the stored information.

So, you see, Nature is able to use all of the 3 dimensions of physical reality to represent its data, while computers (and, consequently, all of AI) seems to be condemned to use a 1 dimensional, slow, physically huge, representation...

So, please please, don't directly compare Nature with human investigation -- they are as far from each other as our planet is from sun...

The more you observe Nature (and I really do!), the more you experience yourself really ignorant about the Intelligence hiding behind...

Nature doesn't know arrays. There's no index (which is the only real distinctive between arrays and lists), and the next atom of information can be (physically) more or less distant from the previous one, so: Nature only uses lists.

Think of it: arrays are only used because of faster accessing reasons, otherwise you never would even think of preferring arrays over lists.

Lists are perfect, because they already contain the previous and the after information bit, which is always crucial to us -- we all are enclosed in the time barrier -- and all of other memory alignment and usage, invented by computer scientists, were simply born out of the necessity of speed, and nothing else.

Lists contain the information stored in the simplest possible way, without wasting any bit of information (which would be necessary if you would care about an index).

Interconnection is the real reason why computers never will be able to substitute a human brain -- and this statement (or better: fact) will never grow old...