Nobody ever answers the hard questions..

[The Vinyl Ripper]

This is in response to the ten questions for Columbia's president post.

Just this morning I was talking to my brother on the phone about the state of the world.

The question of religion came up somehow and in the course of trying to make a point to him I asked the question: "Could an amoeba design a human being?". My brother flatly refused to answer because he knew where I was going with the question.

It's the same way on DU. I can't recall how many times I have asked the question: "How do you feel about the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world?".

I have never gotten an answer to that question.

[redqueen]

1. What kind of question is that?

How is that difficult?

:wtf:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

4. In the context of religion it is a very hard question..

As far as we know, no being can design anything more complicated than themselves.

If our universe and ourselves were created by an intelligent designer then that designer must be more complicated than the Universe and ourselves.

If it requires an intelligent designer to create ourselves and that designer is more complicated than we are then who designed the designer?

Do you see where I'm going with it now?

[redqueen]

13. So it's a "there is no god" sort of thing?

And that has what to do with incarceration rates?

:shrug:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

20. Just two hard questions... In the right context.. n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

25. I would take some issue with those statements.

An amoeba is incapable of designing a human, yes. A dog is incapable of designing an amoeba as well, though the dog is more complex. Complexity doesn't have anything to do with it; data processing ability and memory does.

That said, the first statement is completely, totally false. A human being, given enough time, could conceivably design anything far more complicated than himself. Once you grant an object both sequential processing ability and unlimited data storage (which we possess, having books and hard disks etc.), there is no upper limit on the complexity a design may have--since both the design and the potential additions are unbounded, the human can always add more.

The second is also incorrect. A fractal is extremely complex. It can be created in a matter of seconds with a simple equation. A creator would only require (simplifying here) the creation of a few quantum laws, a few elementary particles, and a bunch of energy.

The third does not logically follow from the previous two, but deserves its own address nonetheless. "Who created God" is an old theological question, and one that is, well...kind of naive. God was not necessarily *created,* because that implies something was *before* God--which is rather bizarre, because time itself is merely a dimension of the Universe. God was not created because God is not a being that exists in time. Time is a creation of God, as are all the other dimensions of the universe. Saying "what was before God?" is kind of like asking, "What's west of God?" It doesn't really make sense, because you're applying dimensionality inappropriately.

(NB: I'm an atheist. All statements in the final paragraph are from the theist perspective.)

Oh, and that statistic makes me think our penal system is inefficient.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

30. OK, show me some evidence..

Where did I ever state that complexity was sufficient to design anything?

Quotes please.

Fractals are as complex as human beings?

Conceivably does not equal can.. Conceivably pigs could sprout wings and fly, it's not likely to happen any time soon, genetic engineering aside.

God does not exist in time?

Proof please.

[Kelly Rupert]

33. Going through those,

You didn't, and I didn't say you did. You misunderstand the point; I was showing a non-relationship between complexity and design. An amoeba being unable to design a human is not caused by their relative complexities--it has to do with the amoeba's absolute complexity. You stated that complexity exceeding the design is a precondition for that design, which is simply false. Complexity is a precondition for processing ability, and sequential processing ability is a precondition for design of any sort. Storage capacity is the single limiting factor for complexity of design, and that is unlimited thanks to storage media.

Fractals are infinitely complex by definition.

Conceivably does indeed equal can. Pigs could not sprout wings and fly; simply because you can imagine it happening does not mean it is a possibility. They have not and will not sprout wings and fly. People can design things more complex than them. "Have not yet" and "cannot" are different things--and given the exponential rate at which computer processing power is rising, I would say that "have not" and "cannot" will both be false statements within our lifetimes.

No theologian I'm aware of would ever claim God exists in time, unless they have an idiosyncratic definition of God, time, or existence. No theologian would claim that God exists inside the universe--you yourself suggests he is more complex, and therefore outside it; by definition nothing can be more complex than the set to which it belongs. No physicist post-Einstein would claim time is not a dimension, and the universe is all dimensions. To say "dimensions stretch out past the universe" is nonsense, for they are bounded by the Universe.

Anyway, take some upper-level math and physics courses, or read up on the fields. Have a few discussions with theologians; many professors of theology would by more than happy to respond to an email from someone wishing to discuss their field, and would happily take your questions. Be respectful and ask if you can have a few minutes of their time first; all academics usually ignore outright challenges from amateurs.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

36. Theologians..

They argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.. Maybe not literally but certainly figuratively.

And yes you did imply that I considered complexity as sufficient to engage in design when you said that a dog can't design an amoeba.

It is *knowledge* not storage capacity that defines the upper limit of design.

And computer scientists have been predicting intelligent machines "real soon now" for several decades.

We have not yet come anywhere near such a thing, despite what Vernor Vinge terms "the singularity".

http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html

With sufficient genetic engineering, pigs could be made to fly, although probably not very well.

Conceive.. noun

1. To become pregnant with (offspring).
2. To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to increase profits.
3. To apprehend mentally; understand: couldn't conceive the meaning of that sentence.
4. To be of the opinion that; think: didn't conceive such a tragedy could occur.
5. To begin or originate in a specific way: a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s.

I can form in my mind the idea of pigs flying..

You really have no way of knowing what I know so I think perhaps you ought to keep your suggestions to yourself.

On edit: Does one "design" a fractal?

Or do you simply write the equation and see what happens?

Something infinitely complex is by definition impossible to "design".

[acmavm]

2. I'll answer. It's ridiculous. You can be incarcerated for anything

now days. And it's all for some corporations to make money in a lot of states. America might as well just put an electric fence around half the US and herd us all in there.

The prison system is a failure. Ask Ted Koppel. And watch his special.

[CT_Progressive]

3. How do you feel about the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world?

I feel that this is unacceptable and needs to be addressed, although I have no solution to offer.

I definitely feel a part of the problem is the "war on drugs". We need to stop arresting people for using, its stupid and solves nothing. Its like saying "ooo, drugs are bad, mmmkay?" Its not like drugs are a mystery. We know what they are and how they work. We know how to cure addiction. We know how to counteract the chemicals.

[MADem]

5. I have said just that on this forum previously.

The number of people in jail for drugs is just foolish. And the fact that so much of our economic "energy" is going towards an illegal, underground enterprise is simply opportunity wasted for the federal treasury. There needs to be some legalization and taxation of product, not incarceration and increased taxes to pay for jails, jails, and more jails.

[redqueen]

15. How many candidates for president have said they'll end the farcical War on Drugs?

I only know of one...

[BlooInBloo]

6. Most idiotic question EVER. And it's leading somewhere even more idiotic.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

7. Not idiotic in the right context....

See my post above..

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

10. Well then...

Just answer the question..

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

12. LOL...

See, you dodge the question.

I'm not surprised at all..

By the way, personal insults are not allowed on DU and you came very very close to calling me an idiot.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

19. You did not answer the question..

And you insulted me again.

Those who first descend to insults lose the argument..

[redqueen]

17. Some members seem to love calling other members names.

No use pointing it out... most seem proud of it.

[fudge stripe cookays]

50. I have a question.

Since you seem to know everything and are so obsessed with others answering questions, why must you misspell Colombia?

[alfredo]

8. If I had read your post (s) I would have answered.

I don't like it. I think it points to a serious flaw in our society.

[ljm2002]

14. How do I feel about it?

I think it is one of the most important issues of the day, as it is an indication of the true state of our nation: "soft" fascism. Why "soft"? Because:

-- we still have free speech (although we still need to "watch what we say"...)

-- we still have freedom to travel (although we're spied on even more when we do...)

-- we still have the 900+-year-old right of habeus corpus (oh, wait a minute, scratch that...)

-- we still have economic freedom (although "upward mobility" is fast becoming a thing of the past...)

oh well you get the idea.

Our system is a joke. We are one of the most brainwashed populations on the planet right now, and it is all able to stay together for one reason and one reason only: we are still the richest most powerful nation in the world, and our population is acutely aware that we're better off than most. And we'd rather not think about the fact that our much-vaunted standard of living is a direct result of outright theft and use of force, whether economic or bombs, we do either one with aplomb. So we don't want to hear about the theft that is going on within our society right now, where the haves are stealing the rest of us blind. We don't want to hear about the rights of people who exercise free speech, and we are only too willing to censure them if they go beyond the bounds of some notion of "propriety" that is dictated by the corporatists and serves only to keep them insulated from anyone who might actually tell the truth about what is happening right now. We don't want to hear about harsh drug laws, because we all "know" that druggies are just bad and evil and probably they all kill and eat babies anyway (i.e. they are one of the demons-du-jour). We don't want to think about the implications of privatized prisons because that would bring up the uncomfortable truth that what is really going on here, and worldwide, is the creation of a one-world corporatist state.

The thing is, politicians are scared to death to touch this issue, just like they are scared to death to touch the drug laws. Why? Because it is so easily manipulated into being "soft on crime", that's why. So we concentrate on the law breakers, without taking a second look at the laws in question. Meanwhile, the lawmakers know that they themselves are exempt from their phony laws anyway. And the beat goes on...

Our system is a joke, a very bad, very harmful joke. The fact that we have the largest military machine ever conceived, much less actually implemented, in the history of the world, makes it that much harder to do something about it.

We need to get creative about how to fight this monstrosity. We need to study the ideas of asymmetric warfare -- not to do violence, but to learn communication strategies that have a chance to succeed against the onslaught of near-absolute power, which is what we have right now.

[Trillo]

18. You must not have been around for very long. (that's okay)

The power of the Prison Industrial Complex to influence our laws and which has led to such a high incarceration rate has been discussed many times over the years. It may not be the only reason, but it's one of them. This is related to the disgust often expressed regarding corporate influence in our government's affairs. Our government was to represent people, not corporations. That's how I feel about it. Hope it answered your question.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

22. I've never asked the question of DU as a whole..

Only asked those who think the sun shines out of America's ass..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Could an amoeba design a human being? No.

However, trillions of amoeba working for billions of years could.

What's your point?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

23. "Design" implies an intelligent action..

Evolution is not "design"..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. So your whole point's a silly semantic argument?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

26. Do you really have to descend to insults?

Why are some posters simply unable to argue without getting personal?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. You ask rhetorical questions then get upset when nobody answers.

"Why are some posters simply unable to argue without getting personal?"

It's not personal, VR, I'd think that's silly regardless of who you are.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

28. That's not a rhetorical question..

I'd really like to know why some people are incapable of arguing without becoming personal.

Two posts on this thread have already been deleted due to personal insults..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. "Can an amoeba design a human being?" is a rhetorical question.

Unless you think somehow the answer could concievably be "yes."

And you said upthread, you only asked it in order to lead into a discussion of God.

Do you know what rhetorical means?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

31. No I did not say that I asked the question to lead into a discussion of God..

Read what I wrote before you put words in my mouth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. I read them. Post #4.

Your rhetorical question's a lead in to discuss an intelligent designer.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

37. From my OP

The question of religion came up somehow and in the course of trying to make a point to him I asked the question: "Could an amoeba design a human being?". My brother flatly refused to answer because he knew where I was going with the question.

Note that the discussion of religion had *already* started when I asked the question.

[IndianaJones]

32. I feel fewer white people is the answer. nt

[porphyrian]

35. It's fucking great!

We're number one! We're number one!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

38. Good one.. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

39. "Could an amoeba design a human being?" - NO.

"How do you feel about the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world?" - Bad



How was any of that hard at all?


Here's an actual hard question: How many monkeys does it take to fill up a dump truck?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

40. Try being an "intelligent design" supporter..

Or someone who thinks the sun shines out of America's ass..

And then see whether you wish to answer the questions.

[Blue-Jay]

41. I did answer your questions.

You didn't answer mine.

(I know I'm going to regret posting in this thread)

[The Vinyl Ripper]

42. How many monkeys does it take to fill up a dump truck?

As many as it takes of course..

Why would you regret posting in this thread?

[porphyrian]

43. Ooo! I know the monkey answer!

One, as long as the dump truck hits it going about sixty downhill on a two lane highway with oncoming traffic.

[Cathyclysmic]

44. 1. What is the payload of the dump truck?

2. Are the monkeys dead or alive?
 

[Blue-Jay]

46. Typical blunder.

You forgot to ask what kind of monkey.

The answer is 2968 dead rhesus monkeys in a 1986 Navistar/International model 9300. That's a lotta monkeys.

[Gold Metal Flake]

45. Laden or unladen?

[Richardo]

47. Do you mean to fill the truck with monkeys or to fill the truck using monkey labor?

Because if they're union monkeys, there's one supervisor for every three-monkey crew and a minimum of 2 crews for every yard and a half of payload. Plus a 90 minute lunch and full benefits. And a pension plan.

[EstimatedProphet]

48. I don't understand

I have never gotten an answer to that question.

Why not? It's not difficult, it's pretty straightforward, it allows people to post their opinion...how is this a hard question to answer?

Are you sure no one has answered you, and not that they gave you an answer other than what you were expecting?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

49. This is the first time I have asked the question of DU in general..

Other times I have asked specific posters that were claiming America is not a police state.

And I have never gotten a reply from those posters.

[EstimatedProphet]

51. Then I think you're misinterpreting

Maybe they just didn't take the questions seriously.