http://psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/ai/consciousness.html

Would that fit the bill?

I'd add that a gradient between species does exist - just not *across species* as he expects. Instead the gradient exist backwards in time. Perhaps this would help him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

Oh to share your certainty of what definitely is or isn't. I'm afraid I'm trapped in a standard human body, with limited perception of the universe, and limited intelligence.

"I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist."
Is that a call to authority?

"I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist."
An alien civilisation could have evolved to the point where they can control time and space with a thought. This fits the definition of a god. I know I don't know whether they exist or not.

"The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god"."
And same said civilisation could be as dumb as poles (just so you know I'm not conflating terms).

"They are tyrants otherwise, and if not, surely not deserving of the title "god"."
Hubris. Don't think human intelligence is automatically able to perceive all of the tyrants intelligence (and therefore purpose to which you were created in said hypothesis). By your definition, if they are in full control of your reality, you may not be as free as you perceive yourself to be - and thus your choice of not to worship comes into question (did you choose? how would you know you chose?).

"What if the Christians are right, and I am wrong?"
Why single this one religion out? You forgot about a dozen others. Good on you that you are advancing the sciences. Keep in mind millions upon millions of religious and non-religious people alike the world over are advancing the sciences as well. How about you give them a shout out too?

I'm not so sure about that (in regards to testing - the basis of which stems from the scientific method).

You can't test precambrian evolution. We can simply observe from fossil remains that it is the most likely solution to a hypothesis (which I'm fine with).

We currently have never observed evolution occur (at a molecular scale). Again, we just see the result (like in the e. coli long term evolution experiment). I.e. by the scientific method evolution is a largely untestable phenomenon. We see the end results, but we haven't been able to reproduce or observe naturally occurring evolution on any grand scale (yet!!!). That's OK really. Hell, we've only been able to easily decode genomes in the last 15 or so years.

One also basically can't do squat with gravitational force except observe the end result of it. The hypothetical graviton has never been observed or detected (afaik).

Well said. You remind me about a pet peeve I have.

In the end of movie credits, the individual orchestra members, having put in more hours of practice and dedication than anyone else to be able to contribute to a movie production, do not get individual credits in the end credits. It is instead normal just to credit the orchestra as a whole. The conductor, orchestrator, song writer, famous solo artists or groups will always get individual credit. All the musicians - nothing.

I could say "Darth Vader" and most people could instantly hum the march. Or "Jaws" and people could hum the classic opening from the brass. Or maybe "Alien" and people would think of the music that scares them shitless (it's not the alien that is scary, it is the sudden noise from the orchestra). I think all of these musicians deserve full credit for their work. Especially if in many movies they give credit to things like "babies born during production" or other non-contributors.

"These studies"

These studies are not listed anywhere in the article.

So all the assertions made are anecdotal news crap until shown otherwise.

"the decent and honest thing ... is to not attribute the quotation to him"

I agree.

And the argument should not be pigeon holed to first world health.

Third world countries will be very interested in affordable ECG.

"Any device that can't pass testing and demonstrate that the balance is in the favour of false positives simply will not be used. Period."

Except if you're in a third world country where they don't have standards and where even something that is only right even only half of the time is infinitely better than nothing.

"> There's a difference between "meets none of the standards" and "compliant, but untested".

No there isn't. You comply with the standard when the pass the tests. You comply with nothing before that point."

Yes, there is actually. You can run the test yourself and meet all the standards yet not get certified because you are not an official testing body. E.g. I can get NASA to test that the bicycle helmet I made meets the Australian Standards, and you can bet your arse that it'll be an accurate result, yet it still won't be certified since they aren't certified to test it.

No, you can't say he didn't. There is simply no record that he did. Considering the vast majority of what he said is not recorded, I'd say it's in the realm of possibility that he said it to someone but we'll never truly know whether or not he did.

Did you know it was a quote from The Sea Wolf without looking it up?

My mind is already made up. You should be able to determine it from my words.

Public health is way more important than most people think.

Note: in no way have I suggested the internet is not useful or good.

Trying educating a country suffering a smallpox epidemic, oh wait - we wiped it off the face of the earth with vaccines. If you are suffering through disease epidemics, the epidemic will cripple every other endeavour you try to do. In other words, the internet is useless if you are suffering from a disease epidemic.

Try educating a country without the internet. A much easier task. There are huge and successful systems dedicated to doing just that.

The internet does not equal education.

"Handing out vaccines isn't going to structurally improve lives"

Yes it will. From both an individual health and public health perspective it is a game changer with massive improvements in people's lives.

"There's no room in business for humor."

I disagree. John Cleese explains it best:

http://videosift.com/british/video/Why-laughing-during-something-serious-isnt-disrespectful