User Controls
Yes psychos, all the ¡Science! shows masks do help stop viruses
-
2020-07-09 at 1:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny no, virus as a package do.
No they don't. They don't decide anything. The environment is what decides and without intention, as for example the cars chosen would be different if the simulation track was different.if this is true then there will be no such thing as recessitivity. (not that i know what the word means) unfavorable traits arent not dropped completely, they lies dormant when the organism CHOOSES not to deploy them.
Faggot shut the fuck up. You know literal jack fucking shit about biology and have the most god damn retarded conception of what is going on.
First recessive genes don't = "bad". Do you think blue or green eyes are bad?
And recessive genes aren't "chosen" to be expressed, there is no choice: either the chromosome has two copies of the recessive gene, or the other gene ("dominant") is expressed. Your kids can express a recessive trait even if you don't, because it's in your chromosome, given that your partner also supplies that gene in that particular fertilisation.
You are just a brain dead mongoloid.thats what it seems like without researches and statistics. many things seems to be happening at a random without any intelligent design until you look at them and start thinking about them.
You have never references or studied any research or statistics. You are just an inbred mongoloidal retard.no u !
:picard.
Shut the fuck up faggot
[Quite]thats not how AI codes are written.
Yes it is. This is deep learning.
You don't know shit about shit.but not the code used to process these difference in the environment.
There's no code "to process differences in the environment". There are random movement traits and a selection mechanism. And that's it. That's the point of the videothey 'thrive' when they dont end up in crashes as a pile of plastic and metals and their factory decides to produce more of them.
replication success.
All of them except the final one ends up crashing. Not crashing has nothing to do with it. "Thriving" has nothing to do with it. The only selection condition is distance down the track and that's it.
You are gay, don't know shit about shit and are too retarded to admit you are retarded. Kill yourself.yes it is.
No it isn't.
thats due to your lack of understanding of the world just like when you're a child and a lot of things adults do didnt seem to have a purpose or function,
like those times your paki father made you dance naked in front of all his bushy bearded paki friends.
Shut the fuck up retarded mong. -
2020-07-09 at 4:31 PM UTC
-
2020-07-09 at 4:40 PM UTC
-
2020-07-09 at 5:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe As a compatiblist, at what point do you draw a distinction between the environment making a decision and an individual making a decision?
Is that distinction semantics?
if your a nigger its always "the environment" that nudges you into a prison near you.
thats pakis phillosphy. -
2020-07-09 at 5:19 PM UTC
-
2020-07-09 at 5:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE No they don't. They don't decide anything. The environment is what decides and without intention, as for example the cars chosen would be different if the simulation track was different.
niggers always blame their environment for their predicament.Faggot shut the fuck up. You know literal jack fucking shit about biology and have the most god damn retarded conception of what is going on.
First recessive genes don't = "bad". Do you think blue or green eyes are bad?
it isnt limited to just eye color you retard. must be your recessive retard genes trying to express themselves.And recessive genes aren't "chosen" to be expressed, there is no choice: either the chromosome has two copies of the recessive gene, or the other gene ("dominant") is expressed. Your kids can express a recessive trait even if you don't, because it's in your chromosome, given that your partner also supplies that gene in that particular fertilisation.
selection processes happen during fertilization. anyway our understamding of how genes get passed down is still quite limited.queer ad hominens removed
u paki faggit. -
2020-07-09 at 6:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe As a compatiblist, at what point do you draw a distinction between the environment making a decision and an individual making a decision?
Is that distinction semantics?
The environment doesn't decide in the sense of making a choice. It has nothing to do with free will. It's just a set of conditions, some things meet those conditions and others do not. There are random variations that interact with the environment, what gets to procreate is "decided" by how they end up interacting with the environment.
The environment and traits "decide" which one gets to procreate and which "traits" are propagated. But the competences that emerge are the actual phenomena we are concerned with. So when do they become free?
When the system is complex enough in just the way necessary that it's functioning is not a matter of knowing the initial conditions and environmental conditions accurately enough, because the "noise" observed while looking at it is the phenomenon. This is actually extra extra key to wrap your head around and it is very complicated. This is a provable mathematical foundation of chaos theory. In nonlinear dynamical systems, the idea that it is about "having enough information" is a myth. To understand properly, you will have to actually understand some maths and theory of chaotic systems and complex systems. This is the system's property.
This is an excellent introductory lecture that I strongly recommend you watch and pay close attention to:
-
2020-07-09 at 6:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE The environment doesn't decide in the sense of making a choice. It has nothing to do with free will. It's just a set of conditions, some things meet those conditions and others do not. There are random variations that interact with the environment, what gets to procreate is "decided" by how they end up interacting with the environment.
The environment and traits "decide" which one gets to procreate and which "traits" are propagated. But the competences that emerge are the actual phenomena we are concerned with. So when do they become free?
When it's not a matter of knowing the initial conditions and environmental conditions accurately enough, and the "noise" you are looking at is the phenomenon. This is actually extra extra key to wrap your head around and it is very complicated. This is a provable mathematical foundation of chaos theory. In nonlinear dynamical systems, the idea that it is about "having enough information" is a myth. To understand properly, you will have to actually understand some maths and theory of chaotic systems and complex systems. This is the system's property.
This is an excellent introductory lecture that I strongly recommend you watch and pay close attention to:
I might watch that sometime. Not any time soon though.
To summarize, would you say the distinction is semantics? -
2020-07-09 at 6:59 PM UTC
-
2020-07-09 at 7:04 PM UTC
-
2020-07-09 at 7:06 PM UTCYes or no is sufficient.
-
2020-07-09 at 7:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe At what point do you draw a distinction between the environment making a decision and an individual making a decision?
Is that distinction semantics?
There is no single "point" through which to draw some hard line, like there is no hard line between a human and some ancestor ape.
I still don't know what mean by whether the "distinction is semantic". You're going to need to explain what you actually mean by this specific part of the question. To me "semantic distinction" means two different words mean two different things for example.
From the way you are repeatedly stating it it appears like you think if their isn't a single well defined point of transition, then it's semantics. Which would mean you consider the distinction between some ancestor fish and a human to be semantics.
That's why I'm asking you to actually explain this part of the question. What does "the distinction is/isn't semantic" mean to you? -
2020-07-09 at 7:24 PM UTC
-
2020-07-09 at 9:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE There is no single "point" through which to draw some hard line, like there is no hard line between a human and some ancestor ape.
I still don't know what mean by whether the "distinction is semantic". You're going to need to explain what you actually mean by this specific part of the question. To me "semantic distinction" means two different words mean two different things for example.
From the way you are repeatedly stating it it appears like you think if their isn't a single well defined point of transition, then it's semantics. Which would mean you consider the distinction between some ancestor fish and a human to be semantics.
That's why I'm asking you to actually explain this part of the question. What does "the distinction is/isn't semantic" mean to you?
We do make a distinction between a human and an ancestor fish, which is why we call a human a human and a fish a fish.
If there is no such distinction between the environment making a decision and an individual making a decision, no point where we can draw that line, then why have you drawn a line? -
2020-07-09 at 9:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe We do make a distinction between a human and an ancestor fish, which is why we call a human a human and a fish a fish.
If there is no such distinction between the environment making a decision and an individual making a decision, no point where we can draw that line, then why have you drawn a line?
athletic abilities failure. Try again.
We make the distinction between a human vs some completely different ancestor of a human (some fish creature millions of years ago) despite there being no single point where it ceased to be a fish or where some monkey ancestor becomes a man. Because they are clearly two distinct things that are bridged by a series of small changes rather than some hard transition point.
That's literally the point. We make the distinction without there being any single location to draw a dividing line.
The same way you distinguish red from blue, but there is no point on the colour spectrum where there is a hard transition. We just demarcate the median of any identifiable colour and say "yep that's red" or "yep that's orange", then it is just shades of red and orange in between. -
2020-07-09 at 9:38 PM UTC
-
2020-07-09 at 10:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country The science seems to disagree with the people who fucking love science. What on earth is going on? This seems like psychopathy to me?
Is it just ego?
This doesn't make a lick of sense. I genuinely think doctors and nurses think they have some secret powers that make equipment and medicines only work for them, and no one else. Hence the prescription system, medical licensing, etc.
The global warming alarmists have been doing that for decades now.
and as with masks, I still ain't walking round in public looking a cunt by wearing a fucking surgical mask. I'll take my chances with the virus, prolly gonna catch it sometime anyway. Just fingers crossed they got a respirator for me if I'm needing one.
. -
2020-07-09 at 10:06 PM UTCAltho I guess its not a bad thing that you can now spot the biggest pussies in the street at a glance.
. -
2020-07-09 at 10:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE athletic abilities failure. Try again.
We make the distinction between a human vs some completely different ancestor of a human (some fish creature millions of years ago) despite there being no single point where it ceased to be a fish or where some monkey ancestor becomes a man. Because they are clearly two distinct things that are bridged by a series of small changes rather than some hard transition point.
That's literally the point. We make the distinction without there being any single location to draw a dividing line.
The same way you distinguish red from blue, but there is no point on the colour spectrum where there is a hard transition. We just demarcate the median of any identifiable colour and say "yep that's red" or "yep that's orange", then it is just shades of red and orange in between.
Ok, so despite a clear point where a line can be drawn you are saying decisions made by the environment and decisions made by an individual are clearly two distinct things. All I am asking is how you have made this distinction.
It's really not that complicated of a question, I don't understand why you are avoiding a straight answer, maybe you just don't know. -
2020-07-09 at 11:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Ok, so despite a clear point where a line can be drawn you are saying decisions made by the environment and decisions made by an individual are clearly two distinct things. All I am asking is how you have made this distinction.
It's really not that complicated of a question, I don't understand why you are avoiding a straight answer, maybe you just don't know.
You haven't asked any straight questions.
