And happy new year good person!!!!

And happy new year!!!

Interesting twist!

An axiom is also a starting point for reasoning (according to my sometimes always almost never correct friend wikipedia... )

So maybe he is arguing this point as his starting point, as per "One fundamental issue is whether or not conscious awareness is simply a by-product of complex intelligent systems."?

Anyway, is it as cut and dry as you thought?

Thanks.

For the record I wrote "largely untestable" and by this I did not mean entirely untestable. Maybe it wasn't worded the best.

You answered it for me "It may be currently difficult/impossible to perform molecular level tests of evolution" - which is close enough to the sentiment I was trying to convey. It's just a reflection on the state of the art. It's my sentence with the "yet!!!" in it. The "yet!!!" was meant to mean that I think it will happen one day.

It is just a matter of time (so to speak).

Perhaps, considering I already put some thought into questions like yours (as you can see from the comment history), you should go back and reread my original statement and you'll see the answer to your question (the same could be said for your first post - I was polite enough to point out you missed the answer to your posit written in my first post).

My apologies, not worded the best, I can now see there are two interpretations of what I wrote.

I meant 'the "definition" ', and not ' "the" definition'. The definition of god is quite broad and what I wrote fits within it.

I would rewrite it as: It fits within the scope of the definition of a god.

Suffice to say, any being that can control time and space with a thought is a god to us both comparatively (as a species) and metaphysically.

Your idea for that particular experiment is valid - it's the one I quoted "e. coli long term evolution experiment".

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

That is very much a tip of the iceberg experiment proving that it occurs (useful really). It doesn't test for or show the intracellular mutation that is going on (that constitutes evolution). Nor does it test for multi-cell organism evolution (which is where the money is).

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.