Bitcoin Forum
November 14, 2024, 11:24:54 PM *
News: Check out the artwork 1Dq created to commemorate this forum's 15th anniversary
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »
61  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 02, 2013, 02:40:52 PM
I'm cross-posting this video from the "Jesus Christ" thread, as it surprisingly has relevance to this discussion, as it touches upon the existence itself and multiplicity of parallel realities, when dealing with the questions of whether something is/was true or not. Thus the validity of certain statements is transformed from the realm of "absolute truth" and "absolute lie" to a "measure of relevance" with regards to a position/state of the one asking or asserting. The only thing that does seem to be absolute is one's own existence.

"Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?" (3:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwbUL6XsUQI

I would encourage readers to watch the first three videos (a few minutes long each) I posted on a previous page, as this one is a continuation of that train of thought to some degree, even though it brings some new information (about Jesus), that cannot be derived from simple logic and definitions within our language constructs, so take it as a gift if you wish Smiley

PS: total length is in (min:sec)
62  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Does Anyone Else Believe In Jesus Christ ? on: November 02, 2013, 12:46:02 PM
Maybe these short videos will help shed some light on the matter:

"Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?" (3:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwbUL6XsUQI

"Judas's Betrayal of Jesus" (1:17)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuXgg1pFp3g

PS: the total length is in (min:sec)
63  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 02, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
Ah, I beg to differ.  I have held back a piece of a cloud from moving, with witnesses.  I have observed a stationary lamp leap off a table.  I have seen the impossible.  I know two people who have experienced levitation, one of them actually floating himself, yes, with sober witnesses around.

I have ran my car on empty off the power of consciousness.  I have quantum healed a dog of cancer by believing he was healthy.

And I assume more magic (or miracles) will come with time.

The fifth dimension adds the variable of omnipotent consciousness into the equation of life.

Quantum healed?   Huh

Wow.  All I asked was what the 5th dimension was.  Can you explain it?

You should really watch the "12 dimensions of consciousness" videos above.
It has 5th dimension and more Smiley
64  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 02, 2013, 08:45:52 AM
It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings?

Then you wouldn't be there Smiley
That universe wouldn't have a recipe or any kind of pre-existing idea of you for you to ever show up there.
It wouldn't know you.

Here are a few short but insightful videos on the topic:

"Existence" (3:22)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41dGJwufXPc

"Why do we exist?" (1:47)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njKs8v61kMU

"I Am" (2:48)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xe0-cSZ6gE

Also, talking about dimensions, it might be more relevant to talk about dimensions of a primary substance, that is consciousness, rather than dimensions of a secondary by product of it, which is space-time.

"12 dimensions of consciousness part 1" (9:59)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiIEyxZFtxw

"12 dimensions of consciousness part 2" (9:58)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KaBPBzlX2Y

"12 dimensions of consciousness part 3" (9:59)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5KO-uQack

PS: the total length is in (min:sec)
65  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 31, 2013, 11:32:11 AM
So, to sum up some of the questions that are still unanswered:

1) Rassah mentioned the dice example, but the question remains: how probable is beneficial mutation compared to vast amounts of destructive ones. Aren't we talking about something like probability of "private keys collision" for beneficial change to occur? If so, shouldn't we see a lot of garbage mutated species in the fossils and only small percent of those that improved upon predecessor? It's hard to warp my mind around the fact that UV damage and mistakes in replication is the source of positive change.

2) TheJoint mentioned about the definition of species and the problem of parents, which is a very good point. Does evolution explain the diversity of species or only adaptation within each one of them? When new mutation occurs, which makes breeding with the old species incompatible, how does that new individual organism procreate then? The explanation I once heard was very complex and a bit "unethical", because it implied that brothers an sisters of this new type must interbreed for a while Smiley

3) Is mutation really random? Do we see the evidence of this in the fossils? The question of "why pigs didn't evolve wings?" was ironic, but the point remains. Do we see species, that would not be capable of certain behaviours for other reasons, attempt to evolve in that direction and fail as opposed to not even trying.

...
I'm very willing to entertain good explanations for this, as I would genuinely like to learn....not anti-evolution here...

On other hand the explanations offered by creationist and such are worse. And don't really answer a the questions either...

It could be that both sides of the creationists-evolutionists argument are influenced by the same forces willing to divert the discussion away from the truth. You might find similar approach in politics. Smiley

If I were to imagine creation by God, I wouldn't go the simple route, where God comes from the sky in a chariot, waves his hand and everything comes into existence. I would imagine God to conceive of an environment (or mathematical model), where it would be difficult and challenging to create something. Then the process of creation would be more like providing an invisible guidance, while growing very complex and very dense crystal.

People often ask, if God is all powerful, why didn't he create a better life for us?
Well, because it's freaking hard in this part of the model. Wanna help? Smiley

I chose the first option in the vote since it smells so good.

The popular answer might not always be the correct one, but thank you for voting anyway Smiley
66  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 11:18:54 PM
As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

The coccyx in humans is the rudiment of a tail (most of which has disappeared).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx


So, again, we got rid of the tail instead of growing a bigger one because it made sense, not because it reduced our ability to survive. I bet tails would make an office clerk's life troublesome Smiley

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

interlagos, sorry, but you lack even the minimum understanding of the laws of nature.

Go on Khan Academy and watch the Evolution videos, search the website I've already pointed you to...

It's pointless we try to explain you why pigs don't have wings when you lack the minimum understanding of how life works.

The animals you pointed are bad examples because they were artificially selected by humans.

Wings evolve separately in several species because it gave an advantage to the animal, and there is not something like a half-wing, it has always a purpose, wings in their earliest form (in some dinosaur) probably were useful for regulating temperature, slowly the animal was able to use those for 1) escaping predators 2) catching pray, and that characteristic was passed to the next generation and so on...

You can see this progression with every characteristic in the animal kingdom, how the eye evolved, how venom evolved, and so on.

We can't explain you everything case by case, but if you understand the fundamental laws of nature, you will understand why snakes do what they do, and why we walk on two feet.

It's intentional. It's good sometimes to dumb yourself down and revisit things that might seem obvious, because you might get an argument you didn't expect. That's how I evolve Smiley

And, by the way, I love Khan Academy, watched a few videos on biology a few years ago, priceless! Smiley
67  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 09:58:54 PM
Why didn't horses or cows or even pigs start to evolve wings? Smiley

Because their style of life, consumption, and reproduction does not require them to fly? They went the run fast and be big enough to fight things off route, instead of the fly away route. Plus they are not carnivores, and birds evolved from carnivorous dinos that needed to swoop down on top of their prey.

As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.
68  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 09:00:37 PM
Then why don't we see those flightless birds to eventually get rid of the wings completely in the process of evolution? Why doesn't evolution optimize for that?

Penguins used to have wings, but have evolved them into more like fuzzy flippers instead, since in their environment they get more food by "flying" under water than flying through the air. If you ever get a chance to see them doing that at a zoo, do it. They are quite amazing to watch.

That's the point. The penguins are amazing, the animals in general are cute and beautiful. They all make sense beyond just being able to reproduce. It seems that there is an idea behind each type of species.

Why didn't horses or cows or even pigs start to evolve wings? Smiley


Just some food for thought...

Multiverse theories are proposed to counter the anthropic principle, suggesting that the reason the universe is so specifically suited to life as we know it is that life as we know it is suited to *this* universe out of many.. An argument against that idea might be that life is extremely unlikely even in this universe, yet came about in a shockingly short time frame, making this also an unlikely multiverse.

Some suggest life as we know it couldn't have evolved even if the universe were filled with primordial soup, yet we see it thriving on a planet that was too cool for life at the time it's been claimed to have begun, thanks to a faint young sun (a problem which "is not yet solved" according to Nature & Nature Geoscience)

Quote
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going - Francis Crick

Quote
Suppose a dozen sharp-shooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad. They all shoot a number of rounds in that direction, but the prisoner escapes unharmed. The prisoner could conclude, since he is alive, that all the sharp-shooters missed by some extremely unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to some remarkable piece of good luck. But he would be far more rational to conclude that the guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharp-shooters had deliberately missed. Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance, almost immediately, perhaps in as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws. - William Lane Craig

Quote
"Everything in physical science is a lot of protons, neutrons and electrons, while in daily life, we talk about men and history or beauty and hope. Which is nearer to God-beauty and hope or the fundamental laws? To stand at either end and to walk off that end of the pier only, hoping that out in that direction is a complete understanding, is a mistake." - Richard Feynman


Great quotes, thanks!
69  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 07:13:26 PM
How would the bird evolve wings (and probably feathers first) provided that their rudiments would be a burden for those mutated species and would decrease their ability to survive. How would the bird "know" to continue to evolve wings until the point it can actually fly and take advantage of that?

Birds wouldn't evolve wings if they decreased their ability to survive. Birds (or proto-birds) don't need to "know" anything.

Riddle me this: If wings that couldn't provide flight weren't advantageous, why do we have so many species of flightless birds?

Then why don't we see those flightless birds to eventually get rid of the wings completely in the process of evolution? Why doesn't evolution optimize for that?

I think it's called "irreducible complexity" if I remember correctly and there are other examples of it.

Creationists love to cite examples of so-called irreducible complexity...until the complexity is reduced by an evolutionary biologist.

I have yet to see an example of "irreducible complexity" that makes any kind of sense.

I wonder how birds teach their "chicken" to fly?
Consider the first capable-of-flight bird has everything in place for a flight and we can imagine that she learned to fly by an accident. But how do then other birds start to fly? Do they all learn it by accident? Can they pass their knowledge and experience to other generations genetically?

Also why don't we see more random species, that the evolution must have produced, like animals with 5 legs, 2 heads or 3 wings, some really random messy stuff like that? Yes, they would have died out, but nonetheless those "random mutations" must have produced a lot of those things, yet we only see the result of what I would call a "guided mutation".
70  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 06:59:05 PM
@interlagos

Here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

And our external influence is the Sun.

I can give you an answer on what I believe but it doesn't match the polling options you put out, we already know that humanity evolved from apes because of scientific evidence but there's a theory out there I find very interesting where scientists think that we are actually evolved from a foreign organism in an asteroid crashing into Earth, this would also go to some way explaining why after all this time we haven't had other species on this planet evolving into sentient life and developing the same brains and thought process we have.

It's the Panspermia Hypothesis.

And there were other "sentient" life similar to humans, probably a lot, like the Neanderthal, but we were the ones who survive.

Does God could have created human through evolution?

If you believe evolution is a logical, natural process of certain genetic mutations flourishing due to their suitability in a given environment, why would you need a god to guide it?

i.e. Satoshi wrote a bunch a mathematical rules and laws that happen to "evolve" just as it is supposed to be (for now on).
So why not a God could not have created a bunch of mathematical rules and laws that make things evolve over time just as it is supposed to be.

You're entering in the deistic perspective here, the problem is this hypothesis makes more questions than gives answers, where did this God came from? Is it conscious? Did it evolve? Is it alone? Are there more like it? Questions that we can't even think how to begin testing...

That's my problem with evolution.  Chaos doesn't lead to order in the absence of intelligence.  Ape to man can be probably be explained, but the question is how non-life would give rise to life.

God of the Gaps Fallacy.

Thanks for the links!
I'm now reading about the "club-winged manakin bird" and in the article they ask:

"How did such strangeness evolve? What evolutionary pathways led to a bird that moonwalks for its sweetheart? Or that tickles its mate's face with its wiry tail feathers? Or whose wings produce a musical, violin-like sound?".

Lots of things to think about... Smiley

agree that laws of thermodynamics might not be exactly applicable here, but I used them as an example of the fact that things usually decay and get eventually destroyed if left alone.

I don't see how an energy source would make things different. If you leave some food on the Sun for a day or two it will get rotten and decay eventually, but would not become a better looking hamburger Smiley

So it must be something else that drives evolution. Even though you do need an energy source to sustain life, it doesn't seem enough from the above experiment.

Well, thats not a very good example. 1. You bring personal perspective into it, what you understand under chaos and destruction. If you put a burger into the sun it changes due to it water drying out into the air (where it can help new plants grow, thank to suns energy), flies lay their eggs into it and fungus grows in it. I would not call this destruction.

If you instead put the Burger into an isolated place like open vacuum space with no energy source affecting it. It in fact doesn't change at all.

I agree that it was a bad example for the reason that the hamburger cannot replicate. Smiley

It seems that we only need the energy source (and other resources as building blocks) for the "healthy" organisms to reproduce as many copies of themselves as possible to provide the playground for the changes (either destructive or constructive) to occur. And then the idea is that "defective" new organisms will die out, but those with "improved" characteristics will have an advantage and will eventually dominate. It seems plausible.

But there is still this problem about how complex ideas (like an organism that would fly in the air) are implemented by those little incremental steps. The evolution seems to optimize locally for survival and you need to have so many things to go out of the optimal in order to have everything in place for an organism capable of flight, that it would have died out many times before it reached that stage.

I think it's called "irreducible complexity" if I remember correctly and there are other examples of it.
71  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 05:13:04 PM
"The Origin of the Human DNA"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2YnC0JmVfA

If you choose the first answer "Natural evolution", please describe how "random mutations" increase genetic information as opposed to actually destroying it. What is the force behind evolution that attempts to decrease entropy as opposed to the laws of thermodynamics, which state that isolated systems eventually evolve towards the state of maximum entropy (complete lack of order). Is there an external influence on our system then? What might that be?

Imagine you have a bunch of 6-sided dice, which are your "life" that needs to survive and evolve.

1) What you are describing, involving random mutations and entropy:

You throw the dice, get a bunch of random numbers. They don't actually mean anything, since you can randomly pick any numbers as survivors, and toss any other numbers aside. This isn't how evolution works though.

2) Let's say there is still entropy, but now we add evolution, where the results of the randomness have meaning. In this case, anything that is 4 or above "survives," anything that's 3 or below we throw away. This is similar to 4> being a beneficial mutation that helps the creature survive, and 3< being a bad mutation that kills it (like cancer or a defect).

You throw the dice, get a bunch of random numbers. You throw away all the ones that are less than or equal to 3. Now you have a bunch of survivors of 4+. Pick them up and throw them again, you'll have fewer survivors. Keep repeating, and you'll eventually have none left. This is basically a species that exists in entropy, where it's genetic mutations are guided by its environment (evolution), but there is no outside influence to propagate it, so, as entropy states, it will fall appart into maximum entropy.

3) Now let's use the real world we live in. There is still entropy, and there is still evolution, but now there is an outside source of energy, like the sun, which allows this species to survive and reproduce.

As in 2, you throw the dice, throw away anything that's 3 or below, and keep everything that's 4 or above. Now you can use the outside energy source to "reproduce" the dice. For every die that's still around, add another, basically doubling the amount of survivors. Throw again, and repeat. If you are lucky, this species will keep growing in number. If not, it will die out, and some other luckier dice thrown by someone else will take over.

This is the right way to think about evolution: it has a source of outside energy (sun, geothermal, etc) as opposed to being an issolated system of entropy, and although the genetic mutations are random, they are selected and guided by the outside environment, such as longer hair helping survive in cold climates, and harder skin or faster legs protecting from predators. Yes, eventually, once the sun's energy will run out, this system will fall apart as well, just as out actual sun and solar system will.

It seems easier with the dice example, but in reality the organizms are so much more complex and tuned and yet fragile.

How would the bird evolve wings (and probably feathers first) provided that their rudiments would be a burden for those mutated species and would decrease their ability to survive. How would the bird "know" to continue to evolve wings until the point it can actually fly and take advantage of that?
72  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 05:03:00 PM
What is the force behind evolution that attempts to decrease entropy as opposed to the laws of thermodynamics, which state that isolated systems eventually evolve towards the state of maximum entropy (complete lack of order). Is there an external influence on our system then?

I meant this. The process of evolution does not happen in an Isolated system. This law in not applicable here.



Earth is not an Isolated system as it constantly receives Energy from the sun. And in this case the complete evolutionary process. So there is nothing to explain as you start with flawed assumptions.



What if we consider Solar System then? Is it isolated enough?
Is having more or less constant source of energy enough to account for decrease in entropy in the evolutionary process?

Earth Environment ≠ the Solar System. I could argue about that but for Evolution it just doesn't matter, unless you want to talk about the creation of the Universe know?

I know it must be hard, because all the Creationist use this as favorite argument, beat science with science. But either they all don't understand this law or they lie to have a good argument, knowing the majority of their viewers / listeners will be more than happy to swallow everything they say as long as it "proofs" their believes.

I agree that laws of thermodynamics might not be exactly applicable here, but I used them as an example of the fact that things usually decay and get eventually destroyed if left alone.

I don't see how an energy source would make things different. If you leave some food on the Sun for a day or two it will get rotten and decay eventually, but would not become a better looking hamburger Smiley

So it must be something else that drives evolution. Even though you do need an energy source to sustain life, it doesn't seem enough from the above experiment.

With evolution certain parts of system get more ordered, but in total entropy increases?

There is energy spend in evolution, that energy can't be reclaimed and it dissipates.

Well, if certain species evolve to the point, when they are capable of destroying the whole civilization, then if they actually do destroy themselves, the overall entropy would increase or stay the same. But what if they evolve beyond the point of surviving on a single planet and move to the stars?
73  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 04:30:34 PM
...
Evolution is a process that occurs on a species level.  However one of its driving forces is the natural selection of favorable traits of individuals of that species.  Mutations within DNA can arise from many pathways.  Obviously damage is an easy example such as UV light.  Another is a a mistake during replication that is not caught by a repair enzyme.  Finally, there can be major mutations such as duplication of entire segments of DNA.  These are probably the most useful from an evolutionary standpoint.
...

Emphasis mine.
So, it sounds like if I do bugs when I'm coding some program, it will somehow produce a better version of that program? Or if we go and twiddle some bits in the compiled image of the program, then it will make it better eventually? It doesn't seem too convincing.

The evolutionists' argument is of course that if we spend a lot of time and do it on multiple parallel versions, then eventually we get the one where it seems like things are improving. But we somehow need to consistently choose the version of the experiment, where things are improving and not only succeed once. So we are talking about multiplying very small probabilities here, which makes the probability of the chain of successful experiments (the evolutionary chain) almost improbable.


...
There was an Earth with primordial soup and all that.
Some amino acids were formed and started interacting in various ways.
Given enough time and trial and error, it seems plausible that some biological Von Neumann Universal Constructor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor)-like beings were formed. I guess somebody could calculate the likelihood of such machines being assembled without conscious help. Maybe there ought to have been millions of these things climbing out of every rock-pool?
...
You suggest that evolution attempts to decrease entropy. Do we know this for sure? I don't really get the problem with entropy. Say: 2 separate gases are introduced into a common chamber and they're allowed to mix. Even if the only energy in the system is that the gases have a temperature above absolute zero, they will almost always mix and hardly ever become more ordered. The argument seems to be that the 'order' in the beginning is information, and this order is lost -- well, I'm not so sure.
...

Once those self-replicating "machines" first occurred they seemed to "want" to get better, more efficient, smarter. That's what I call reducing the entropy. I don't have much problem imagining, that they would occur eventually, but why wouldn't they be destroyed later?

The analogy I hold in my head is this: if you run this "random mutations" theme over your hard drive for a good amount of time, then you might eventually end up with an image of Linux and a bunch of programs that would allow your computer to boot and do some basic stuff. But why running this "random mutations" theme further would produce better versions of programs over time?
74  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 03:58:31 PM
Not from apes, but common ancestor... I can't really pick that one...

Thank you for the correction.
Wasn't a common ancestor of apes and humans also an ape of some sort?
I corrected the first answer anyway...

I can give you an answer on what I believe but it doesn't match the polling options you put out, we already know that humanity evolved from apes because of scientific evidence but there's a theory out there I find very interesting where scientists think that we are actually evolved from a foreign organism in an asteroid crashing into Earth, this would also go to some way explaining why after all this time we haven't had other species on this planet evolving into sentient life and developing the same brains and thought process we have.

So far I think this is one of the most intelligent theories I've heard yet, much better than all this created out of nothing bullshit we keep hearing about from religious people etc. it might also go to explaining why we haven't seen any other sentients in our galaxy unless of course we've already made contact and our governments are doing their thing of keeping it from us.

Just to point out that the term "seeded" I used in the poll doesn't deny the ape heritage, which has in fact been demonstrated by science (if not proven). One evidence comes to mind is that the mechanizm to generate vitamin C is broken exactly the same way in both apes and humans. Most other animals have it working just fine, except maybe guinea pigs where it's broken in a different way.

Seeding means taking an appropriate baseline DNA from Earth (hominid DNA was used as a base for humans) and infusing it with "improvements".



Earth is not an Isolated system as it constantly receives Energy from the sun. And in this case the complete evolutionary process. So there is nothing to explain as you start with flawed assumptions.


Also this thread belongs into Off-Topic as it has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

What if we consider Solar System then? Is it isolated enough?
Is having more or less constant source of energy enough to account for decrease in entropy in the evolutionary process?

I put the topic in "Politics and Society" as knowing our true origin might affect the way our society is built in the future. If moderators disagree, they can move to Off-Topic of course.
75  Other / Politics & Society / The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 28, 2013, 03:52:32 PM
"The Origin of the Human DNA"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2YnC0JmVfA

If you choose the first answer "Natural evolution", please describe how "random mutations" increase genetic information as opposed to actually destroying it. What is the force behind evolution that attempts to decrease entropy as opposed to the laws of thermodynamics, which state that isolated systems eventually evolve towards the state of maximum entropy (complete lack of order). Is there an external influence on our system then? What might that be?
76  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Is WebRTC going to change the world? on: October 11, 2013, 06:35:27 PM
So, it's similar to RetroShare?

I've never used RetroShare or anything similar, but from a quick look at Wikipedia, the difference seems to be that with WebRTC you don't have to install and manage any software. Having latest Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox would be enough. So simplicity and usability must be a big plus for adoption, not so sure about security though, but that can probably be worked upon.
Running on windows.  Using browser plug-ins or javascript.  What could go wrong?


Well, the video in the OP is called Linux Action Show, so it can definitely run on Linux too. Ubuntu and Mint come equipped with Firefox by default, so no prob there.

What is critical is how they keep the private key secure (if they even have one). As long as private key is hidden well enough it doesn't matter if it's javascript or something else that handles the rest of the protocol.

Maybe integration with Bitcoin hardware wallets might come in handy.
77  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bye bye bitcoin on: October 11, 2013, 06:30:18 PM
As Trace Mayer once said in an interview:
"You don't have to adapt, you can always go extinct"

Buy buy wingding Smiley
78  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Is WebRTC going to change the world? on: October 11, 2013, 06:05:46 PM
So, it's similar to RetroShare?

I've never used RetroShare or anything similar, but from a quick look at Wikipedia, the difference seems to be that with WebRTC you don't have to install and manage any software. Having latest Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox would be enough. So simplicity and usability must be a big plus for adoption, not so sure about security though, but that can probably be worked upon.
79  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Channeling Erik - Real or Fake? on: October 11, 2013, 03:25:50 PM
Great examples and discussion!
Thank you Dank and friends for keeping this thread alive Smiley

So, from that perspective, what I've posted here is legit, until I figure out otherwise Tongue

Actually, it works the other way around...

What you're saying is all the magicians out there just perform tricks, but if there are enough magicians, one will make real magic...

C'mon, it's all bullshit, pure charlatans or people with some mental illness.

Good point!
There is definitely a whole new level of complexity when dealing with information from "human sensors", but the good news is - if you are human you're sensor too! Your body is a great tool to determine whether somebody is telling you lies or not, because that information is being emitted anyway only in a different way. You can watch videos from this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141298.msg1514618#msg1514618
to learn about recent scientific research on presentiment.

Like cells in your body, humans might be quite divergent at their level of sensitivity to different phenomena. If the cells in your stomach were told about the great colours and pictures that the cells in the retina of your eyes are receiving, they would probably say something like: "Bullshit, those guys must be smoking weed or something!" Smiley But you need to get enough different data streams from those cells to start seeing the whole picture or you wouldn't be able to make any sense of it. There is small group of people on Earth who (like those cells in your retina) might be considered eyes of humanity. It's up to you to decide whether you want to make sense of what they are seeing.
80  Other / Politics & Society / Is WebRTC going to change the world? on: October 09, 2013, 01:48:38 PM
In short, WebRTC is a new peer-to-peer technology developed by Google with support from Mozilla to enable a broad range of services like secure video conferencing, anonymous file sharing and even distributed site hosting - all within your Web browser.

"WebRTC Game Changer | LAS s29e01 "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2NAsUf0Ewc

The relevant part starts at around 1:10:00 in the video above.
What do you guys think?
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!