Scarabin

I do not think computers will ever become intelligent in the sense of being able to learn as humans do, I think they are intelligent in that they can be programmed to solve problems. Many jobs involve comparing measured attributes with a knowledge base.

I agree with every point made, and I hate interacting with phone robots but don't they reduce delays? Let me play "devil's advocate" some more. We will always need some human interaction but hopefully we will always have parents, family and friends. As regards our preference for human interaction perhaps cost - a sort of minimalism - will overrule this. Example: medicare is too expensive: perhaps it could become affordable if the knowledge part were provided by computers (fast and accurate and infinitely patient) and only the sample-taking etc was performed by humans? This could be justified by saying it was the only way to provide universal care even though it increased the proportion of patients dying due to faulty treatment? Second example: think how we use Wikipedia even though we know it may be inaccurate. Is laser surgery an example of machines taking over?

I fear that projecting current trends into the future may not prove accurate, and that ultimately almost every job, or at least the routine portion of every job, can be replicated by a machine or computer. Surgeons are being replaced by machines, computers are delivering tutorials - and many students prefer computers to live professors. Computers are rendering many of the functions carried out by actuaries unnecessary. Knowledge jobs are being taken over, not just manual or unskilled jobs. Sure you can point out that the process is far from complete, but can you believe that the transformation is not ongoing? At the present time a fairly low level performer can outperform an expert with the aid of a computer, not so? My G.P. checks everything on his computer and flounders when his computer is down. Maybe trial lawyers can escape this, but only as long as litigants prefer the luck of an adversorial process to automatic justice, and the system allows this choice? This reads too much like a lyrical vision of the future and I apologise for this but I think my statements are fact-based.

Agree with your comments. Thanks for the compliment but don't feed my ego or paranoia, both are probably over-developed, already!

I think you have covered the subject fully and I can only offer a piece of subjective speculation. I think that most jobs may ultimately be taken over by robots, and that both wealth and power may end up concentrated in the hands of the shareholders and jobholders of a very few global major corporations (as you have said). If this happens I wonder if western capitalism can survive in its present form. Since the alternative of communism has already been discredited should we be looking to someone like Kuwait as a model for the future? Since I am 81 and retired 20+ years ago my interest is fairly academic but I have noted that people living in big cities seem to find comfort in forming small local communities and that great discrepancies in wealth seem to increase dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Not earth shaking discoveries but maybe relevant? I shudder at the prospect of gated and walled communities of the super-rich, protected against the disenfranchised "morlocks" by "super" drones.

I thought of setting up a seperate topic but feared the degree of interest and scope of discussion would not justify this. So I left it as an offshoot of gun control, in a wider sense.

Normally, living in Australia I would not presume to express any opinion on US laws, but may I offer one thought. If I were concerned with guarding against a tyranical minority taking over my country I would fear the use of robots in accumclating wealth and power in a few hands. While oppression by drones may not be feasible in America, I think Assad would be in a much stronger position if he had a plentiful supply of drones. I do not think I am a Luddite but I would be interested in posters views on computers and robots taking over jobs, and on drones - I think the latter are a two-edged sword: At the moment they suit the west but what a weapon for a terror group!

Back to Homeland, our local foreign language TV channel is showing the first season of "Prisoners of war", the Israeli "original" of Homeland. I have realised the reason I enjoy it is that it really forces you to identify with the POW's & their families. Does Homeland compare on this aspect?

I have ignored the remainder of your post since Blackshoe has already answered this. As regards your first paragraph: I know probability as a branch of logic, Leibnitz, and as a branch of mathematics, Pascal. I have seen probabilities applied to propositions and to events. I am familiar with probabilities which can be measured and those which cannot but I have never before encountered your proposition that probabilities can only be assigned to "scientific" statements. Where do you get your information? What exactly do you mean by "a scientific statement", is it the same as a scientific proposition, and what is the precise difference between a scientific and an ordinary statement? A last question, have you and mikeh an agreement automatically to upvote each others posts?

I dont want you to laugh or cry. I'll be happy if you will just read and remember your own posts and hopefully mine before rushing to reply. Your reply to Fluffy did not refer to me. In a reply to nige1 you said: "This post of nige's appears to reflect scarabin's error: just because there are two sides to a debate doesn't mean that both sides possess equally valid arguments." Perhaps you can tell me: -what you mean by valid? -what error have you identified? -why is it mine? Now don't try to answer with some intellectually dishonest vague statement as you did to a previous question I asked you. Try to give a specific answer. Why was that cowardly, should I have named specific posters? Is that what you would have done? Is it cowardly when you lie about your previous posts, or bully people you feel will not retaliate? You completely missed the point I was trying to make, either because I was too obscure or because you are not familiar with sampling technique. This is the sort of streak of honesty which you occasionally show and which disarms me so that I begin almost to regret finding your debating tactics deplorable. B.t.w. do not worry you will never adopt my debating style, our styles are poles apart.

When I replied to Mikeh's post I could have predicted what would happen: faced with a direct challenge(implied) he would choose to attack Fluffy to divert attantion from his failure to reply. I consider you(Mikeh) owe me a reply: either seek to justify your canard or apologise.

I hope that you have misread one of my posts and that I did not actually say this. I studied statistics and probability in the 1950's so my attitude to probability and statistical method may appear pedantic to some posters. I suspect that we would both agree that the probability that God exists is less than 50%, and that the probability the bible is inerrant is still less, and the probability that some church has discovered absolute truth is lower still. Where I think we would differ is that I believe there is no such thing as certainty in this world, and you would assume a lower probability of God's existence than I would. J M Keynes's "Treatise on probability",published in 1921 and available for free download, has an interesting discussion of mathematical and immeasurable probabilities. I consider that rational arguments, for whatever premise, are valid. I also believe that when rational people descend to name-calling and invective they become irrational and their arguments lose validity. My plea for good manners in debate is based on two things: I think we should be able to conduct, polite rational debates; after all I hope we are seekers after truth and not bent on winning arguments at all costs. My second reason is more personal: my mother was a devout Christian and a great lady, and some of my relatives and friends are equally devout. It hurts me when someone calls them insulting names or seeks to pour scorn on their beliefs. I am sure they would never be so rude.

Are you quoting Max I Dimont's "Jews,God and History"? I think Mikeh might find it fascinating although he might not agree with Dimont's "unscientific facts".

I do not think you are justified in quoting this. As far as I can judge, anyone replying to your posts has shown you considerable courtesy, despite your posts being provocative and aggressive. I am puzzled however that you have made pronouncements which I do not recognise as bible-based or in accord with the doctrine of any church or cult I have encountered. Are you a member of a recognised church or is your religion based entirely on your personal experience and beliefs? I note that you criticise virtually all existing translations of the bible. Do you base this on knowledge of ancient greek and hebrew languages, and do you have access to original manuscripts as primary sources?

I meant no insult. I promise you that although I may criticize you I will never deliberately insult you. Would you accept "My only wish is that all posts may show such moderation" without feeling insulted? Some other replies showed less compassion. Since brevity seems to invite misunderstanding, let me elaborate. I judged 32519 to be sincere, as you did, and hence felt his post deserved your reply. I can understand that other posters may feel he is perpetrating an elaborate hoax and hence their replies are suitable. Where we may differ is that I think we should always assume posters to be sincere.

My congratulations on a truly outstanding post. It shows both understanding and humanity. My only remaining wish is that all your posts may show such moderation.

Some posters have replied to my complaint, by telling me their usually extreme personal views and then claiming that their views are by definition balanced. I can only say that in my experience life does not work like that. Reality is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself. squealydan went to the trouble of concocting a rationalisation for my views, just to challenge me with it. Thanks squealydan, my only criticism is that I do not think you are actually a scientist, or familiar with scientific method. OK. So what am I actually on about? First "balanced" has a different meaning when applied to a group of views and to individual views. For a group I would expect a bell curve clustered about a norm which would lie near the middle of the spectrum. For individuals I would not expect those giving extreme answers to regard them as balanced unless they are fanatics. Consider the fanatics credo: (1) This could run: I am certain of the existence/non-existence of God and anyone who disagrees with me is a purblind idiot or a liar. (2) A possible addition would be: There is nothing which could make me change my views. (3) Another addition would be: I am anxious to lay-down my life for my beliefs/ anxious to kill some of those infidels. Now turn to the reasonable approach: (4) No one knows if God exists/does not exist. And this will never be proven. However there is a large body of belief on both sides and this is probably as close as we will ever get to measuring the probability of the existence of God. (5) My view is not set in stone and could be changed by genuine new evidence. (6) I find this subject interesting but I am not obsessed by it. And I see no need to commit violence in support of my beliefs. I know which approach I consider intelligent.

First paragraph: (1) I am not surprised that a majority of the posters are atheist, I am surprised by the intemperance of their views. I expect the answers to form more of a bell-shaped curve. (2) I would be interested to examine your "evidence that there is a correlation between education and intelligence, and between education and atheism". Can you please point me toward this? Third paragraph: Every time I open this thread I am invited to poll my vote. I have not tried to vote a second time so do not know if multiple votes are possible. My comment reflected nothing more sinister than this.

To answer your first point: maybe most posters are even more intelligent than I am. (Especially as I am not hip enough to know what SCNR means?) I would be happy to accept this, provided their posts show some evidence of thought. If I have to be labeled I would prefer to call myself a free-thinker. As for the rest of your second paragraph, I think that if you see no difference between debating the existence of God and the trivia you mention, then I would seriously counsel you not to trust your own judgment. On a more positive note I have tried to give a more general answer to the meaning of balanced in an omnibus post.

I would expect them to examine both sides of a question and end up with more balanced,less extreme views.

What puzzles me about this topic is not the rambling, incoherent nature of the posts but that the poll contradicts my preconceived opinions. Thus I would have expected a bunch of bridge players to be of above average intelligence, and because of this I would expect the majority of votes to cluster round "tolerant, don't much care",which they do, and around "ambivalent,etc", which they don't. Perhaps this is due to multiple votes and some fanatics may have stacked the vote? Added to this some posters seem to have no inhibition to contradicting themselves, nor to exposing themselves as narcissistic.

I do not think I said anything remotely like this. I merely pointed out to Vampyr the glaringly obvious fact that since Dawkins has written books on atheism it is possible to be influenced, persuaded,converted by these. I think your experience may not be universally shared. For me, and I think this may apply generally in the older generations, my progress to disbelief involved silently disagreeing with interminable sermons which I was forced to attend as a child. And usually some climactic event which triggered a decision. Perhaps because I am not an extremist thinking in terms of simple absolutes, and because I value good manners, I find this part of your post offensive. Why do you do this? Surely you must be intelligent enough to realise that you do not influence people by offending them?

I agree America is a great & amazingly generous country, and I have only admiration for its people, (Except in games like soccer & when they accuse successful foreign teams of cheating.) America played a major part in WW2, perhaps the major part, and never had to choose between "guns and butter"; it financed the reconstruction of Europe, and it has since conducted several foreign adventures without seeking to acquire new territory in compensation. That said, you still have a constitution which encourages stalemate (gridiron?) rather than decision. I understand that you yourselves consider that you have had many ineffectual presidents since WW2: e.g Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, and now I venture to predict Obama. Most progress seems to require breaking the rules/laws, e.g. mandates, or patronage. Perhaps these suggest the fault may lie in the constitution. I am not trying to offend anyone, I thought this is generally agreed among your political historians, not so?

I bow to your greater knowledge since you live in the country. My thought is that the constitution set up the system of checks and balances which has rendered the US government chronically dysfunctional

I used exceptional in its main sense of "unusual, atypical" not its subsense of "exceptionally good". My logic is that it is unusual for a country to be successful while led by a lame-duck government. (Unusual not unique, my own country is in a similar position.) My practise is to quote only the relevant portion of a post, it seems unreasonable to expect readers to wade through a pond of dross for a single nugget of relevance. However I am happy to ignore your posts if you so wish.