I think you replied to the wrong post.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
You can't choose to believe or not believe.
Really. Don't just take my word for it. Try it out.
Not really. The image I have is of an isolated village in the south seas fruitlessly building runways.
Sigh... Well, I tried.
I'd show you formally, but you likely won't understand it, you just you'll disagree anyway, and slashdot will make it impossible to use standard symbols.
Are you an autodidact, by chance?
Atheism is an absence of belief, not a belief in absence.
You know that those are logically identical, right?
A simplified example: "John doesn't believe God exists" is identical to "John believes God does not exist" as they both expresses, unambiguously, John's beliefs about the existence of God. That is, to the question "Does John believe God exists" both statements evaluate the same way: "no".
I understand why you want to say ridiculous things like that. It may even be effective if your opponent is a moron. But it's complete nonsense. If you care, at all, about reason and logic (as many internet Atheists claim) you shouldn't abandon it so readily, regardless of your motivation.
Now that that's out of the way, this is what you *actually* want to do is differentiate between gnostic and agnostic atheism. Take a look around here, or (if you can stomach it) JREF and you'll find quite a few gnostic atheists -- those that believe, with impressive conviction, that no gods exist and assert knowledge to that effect. The more sensible agnostic atheist, while lacking a belief in god, claims no knowledge of that fact, they merely don't believe in the existence of any god.
The crux of that is 'belief' Belief is an interesting thing, as belief is not subject to the will. That is, you can't simply choose to believe or not believe in God or anything else. For example, you can't, no matter how hard you try, force yourself to disbelieve in the existence of Tom Cruise. Equally, it's impossible for you, through an act of will, to believe in Santa Clause.
If they are, why can't they show us the evidence?
I don't even know where to begin. The scope of scientific inquiry? The limits of empiricism?
Off the top of my head, Whitehead's Science and the Modern World isn't a bad place to start. Give that one a try.
but it WILL happen.
Is this what they mean about religion and AI?
Because that sounds pretty religious...
You must have an exceptionally talented 6-year-old nephew.
Criticize the icons all you want, but they're certainly better than the work of 6-year-old children; your nephew excepted, of course.
Obamacare doesn't benefit an overwhelming majority. It screws over the overwhelming majority.
The data suggest otherwise.
Improve on the system? How?
I don't know if you'll like it...
the whole system is rushing to a single payer inevitability.
That would be it.
We're particularly interested in research that either won't work or, if it does work, won't work for a long time. And I've been reading some of your papers.
Sounds like a pretty damning indictment.
You've missed the joke.
Whenever a computer defeats a human easily, of course it isn't true AI.
You're confused. I'm not sure how, exactly, but you might want to google "hard problem" and "strong AI" to net (ha!) yourself a better grounding.
The bit about the score is key here. It's essentially no different than any other learning algorithm as it does not discover on its own that the goal is to achieve a high score. The computer vision part is neat, but nothing new, and ultimately does nothing to differentiate this from the zillion other similar projects as it is only used to find the score! Countless hobbyists and researchers have made ANN's and Genetic algorithms which produce similar results, both the computer vision part and the game-playing part.
The program does not, in any way, "study a problem and gain expertise all on its own". It's pure click-bait. I'm ashamed to have fallen for that particular trap.
Damn, dude, you must be deaf, dumb, and blind.