That isn't evolution, that is capitalism at work. There is money to be made from deer hunting. So the departments of natural resources explicitly manage deer herds to best sustain herd size for hunters. In many places, people purposely manage land to attract deer by planting food crops for them.

In Minnesota, deer collisions with cars do hundreds of millions of dollars of damage every year. But the sizes of the herds along major transportation routes are managed for hunting. If wolves take a cow, the DNR pays the farmer. If the deer eat their crop, there is no compensation. Crop damage is a huge issue, but there is nothing a farmer can do if his neighbor is managing his land to attract and sustain deer for hunting.

Its interesting that you see signs about "do not feed the wildlife" in parks. Right next to the bird feeder.

Just to be clear. We know human intelligence can be created because it has been created as part of the creation of the universe. The question is whether you can recreate it with your little computer.

What evidence? You repeatedly make assertions about the power of the gods of math, computers and quantum physics. But where is the evidence that human intelligence is a product of those? There is none. The claim is that they are useful for explaining the universe as we observe it, human's are part of the universe so they must be able to explain human intelligence. That is not a logical construct in any real world application. The fact that something exists does not mean that we can recreate it other than in your imagination. And there is no evidence that we can.

The conclusions you draw from them are not.

And you have faith there isn't something you don't know. For instance, you assume "the brain" is the sole repository of human intelligence. That is almost certainly not true.

Actually it is both since they are synonyms. But I expect your point is whether something is impossible or just too difficult to accomplish. - i.e intractable or non-tractable. There is no reason to think simulating creation of the universe isn't both.

Are laws against fraud "paternalistic"? Are laws against computer viruses paternalistic? I suppose so. Anything that protects people is paternalistic. But if you think people should own the information about themselves then any use of it without their approval is theft. We don't let someone buy a copy of a painting and make 50 million more copies with the defense that they bought it. But someone can collect your address and sell it to as many people as they want along with whatever other information they have about you.

We now live in a world where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. And ultimately, that means there is no freedom.

I am clearly a heretic or at least agnostic. I don't have faith that the universe was created by and defined by binary math.

Yes they do work for some things. Your claim is that they encompass everything. That you can recreate the universe using math. Or at least the part of it that is human intelligence. There is NO evidence for that. Its purely a matter of faith.

No, because I think you are a true believer who is convinced math and physics are magic.

No, I think you are elevating them to a religion.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. It presumes that human intelligence is a result of logical reasoning. That is faith, not fact.

No, I compare your belief in them to religion. We aren't talking about "in theory" we are talking about "in reality". In fact, you can't create the sun or a new universe. Or an intelligent human. And your claim that all you need is a sufficiently powerful calculator to do those things is pure nonsense.

That is BS, median income doesn't support that conclusion. It describes the mid-point in the range of incomes. It tells you nothing about what has happened on either side of that midpoint. Repeating fallacious conclusions doesn't make them correct. You need some evidence that actually proves your claim.

When talking about income you have fairly continuous group of inocmes across the middle. So an increase in median income tells you that more people in the middle increased their income above the new mid-point than reduced their income below it. But that is a conclusion about change in a very narrow band in the middle, nothing like "half".

I don't know if that is true. I don't know when Canada introduced the $2 bill.I doubt Canadian businesses use bill shaped slots for loonies and toonies. Like US cash drawers, they have bins for change.

Cash drawers were designed so people could quickly give change with the most common bills each in their own slot and a slot for all the others. $2 bills go into the "other" slot. When people give change its a lot quicker to grab a couple ones than to sort through the "other" slot.And if you use a slot for $2 bills, you need to sort through the "other" category every time you need a $10 or a $20 depending on how many slots you have.

I think its important to remember there was a time when almost every transaction required giving change. Thought went into making those transactions fast and consistently accurate.

Contrived? Yes, it was contrived to demonstrate how medians work. I gave you two datasets and gave you the medians of those datasets. It is exactly how medians work.

What does that mean? Given almost infinite resources (and knowledge) you can reproduce the universe? You have a mathematical model! So we can create an Artificial Universe given enough time and resources?

Because in the context of the universe the entirety of human history is less than that. If you want to argue on a cosmic scale, then yes anything that currently exists can theoretically be reproduced. Its an almost perfect description of religious belief with self-contained logic.

Here:

Let me suggest that AI is modeling sociopathic human "intelligence". It is using "reason" with an absence of any other human values beyond self-interest.

We have $2 bills in the United States although you will get a strange look if you use one. The reason they aren't in circulation is that cash drawers didn't have a slot for them when they were introduced. So no one gave them in change. The problem is similar for pennies. They don't stay in circulation because no one carries them. They end up in a change jar or just thrown away. Getting rid of them is a good idea. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.Switching to metal for dollars and two dollar bills would be a good idea as well. At some point, hopefully not too soon, you could do away with cents entirely and just round to the nearest dollar.