1. People tend to be linear thinkers; people once predicted that the genome project would be completed in 700 years, after only roughly 1% of it was completed in the first 7 years. Instead, it took only 7 more doublings in computing power, or 7 more years, an excellent example of exponential change [Wikipedia/Accelerating change].
See also Youtube/Ray Kurzweil on the Human Genome Project and perceptions of research.
~
2. Nowadays many people unfortunately still apply similar linear thinking, when it comes to their sometimes naive predictions, while sadly not paying attention to the rate of change in technology.
~
There are possible ways to circumvent modern automation including Universal Basic Income or UBI. [A 2020 Us presidential candidate actually promises UBI in 2020, though this will probably be difficult to achieve.]
~
3. Linear thinking reminds me of theistic behaviour; bibles have remained stagnated in ignorance, having not changed much for millennia, and religious thought tends to encourage a type of mindset that ignores evidence or is resistant to acknowledging change.
Oooops, are you a linear or exponential thinker?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Greetings, human ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Not everything gets improved exponentially. AI has been, yes. General intelligence in AI? Not as much.
AI in cars have been exponentially improving. The physical aspects of the cars? No.
I wouldn't classify myself as a linear OR an exponential thinker. Both have their places. I use both.
Are you trying to make some kind of point? And how do you know advances in general intelligence research, is not exponentially moving along? Any citations, that contrast the earlier citations I gave?
Any human being can fall victim to linear thinking and ignorance; whereas ''theistic behavior (whatever the heck that means)'' is not. The Bible hasn't changed for millennia because it is not a science textbook, for goodness sake. It contains historical documents whose central theme is the relationship between God and Man.
Usually it's only the fundamentalists that do all the ''ignore evidence because Bible'' thing; and fundamentalism of anything is by default not good.
JazzTheist: "Any human being can fall victim to linear thinking and ignorance"
You know it is not wise to start a post describing your self thusly...
rmfr
It is also not wise to start arguments with ad hominem statements.
Which is all you have been doing after your bullshit has been thrown back in your face on another thread before started here.
rmfr
I can't believe this. You (and Cognostic) explicitly use insults and ad hominem attacks and treat them like champions of your worldview. I simply respond to them. You're being very hypocritical.
And that was not an ad hominem. It was an attack on all your ideas, which have been nothing but bullshit and horse hoowhee. You theists just cannot think for yourselves can you? And this is not an ad hominem. It is an honest inquiry.
rmfr
For what it's worth, I do not think linearly nor exponentially. My thinking tends to be more "zig-zaggish". Always keeps people guessing. And sometimes I might throw a little loop-dee-loop in there just for fun.
@Squiddly-Jazz Re: To Arakish - "I can't believe this. You (and Cognostic) explicitly use insults and ad hominem attacks..."
Well! There's a fine howdy-do!... *stomping foot on floor*.... Recognizing Arakish and Cog, but not me? After all the hard work I put into my posts to you?.... Hmph! Well, guess I now have to bring out my big guns. Remember, though, YOU asked for this. (Brace yourself. This may sting a little. Everybody else, you might want to look away for a minute...)
YOU, sir, are a doo-doo head!
THERE! HAH! Avoid THAT, mister! Sorry I had to be so harsh, but you pushed me into a corner.
Much of the bible is historically inaccurate. It's claims about the origins of the universe this planet, solar system and life on this planet are demonstrably erroneous, even as metaphor they strike me as absurd.
"The Bible hasn't changed for millennia because it is not a science textbook,"
The point is that a book that was claimed as the immutable word of an omniscient deity has proved to contain fallible erroneous human myths.
You do have a point. However, not all Christians believe in biblical inerrancy; and even though the Bible may contain human errors, that still wouldn't defeat its purpose--to demonstrate the relationship between God and Man.
What is the evidence for the assertion that there is a relationship between humans and a 'god'?
I was not talking about the validity of the Bible; I was stating the theme of the Bible.
JazzTheist: "I was stating the theme of the Bible."
And what OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE do you have to back this up?
rmfr
Urgh, why do I need objective evidence to demonstrate what I meant to say?
Without it, whatever you meant to say is preposterous and outlandish and is summarily dismissed.
rmfr
Do we have objective, hard, solid, empirical evidence that Hawking radiation exists? No, right?
So was Steven Hawking being a dumb con jerk?
Stephen Hawking simply hypothesized for the possible existence of what later got called Hawking Radiation. No con job. And who is the one throwing around insults? And acting childish?
rmfr
I'm asking you a very simple question: does Hawking radiation exist, yes or no?
Hawking radiation is a possible phenomenon, the existence of which would be consistent with observation.
According to your methodology, how is it any more possible than leprechauns and magic if it hasn't got objective empirical evidence?
Actually that is false, Hawking radiation has an excellent theoretical footing and in its infancy when it comes to searching for it via the Fermi space telescope. However, MIT physicists have simulated Hawking radiation in the laboratory, using ultrashort laser pulse filaments.
So technically, under laboratory conditions it holds up.
In conclusion, although it is yet to be detected in space where again I would stress the short time span of measuring and detection, it has a solid theoretical footing and is successful under laboratory conditions.
Could your 'hypothesis' do as well?
Just as I expected, this is where your methodology hits the wall. The same methodology that you determine the validity of atheism does not seem to apply now.
''Hawking radiation has an excellent theoretical footing...MIT physicists have simulated Hawking radiation in the laboratory...''
You seem to be reluctant to admit that there's no objective empirical evidence for Hawking radiation (which is a thing that falls into the science realm). Simulations aren't real and labs aren't outer space.
I've heard numerously from you guys that if things don't have objective empirical evidence then it should be considered non-existent. So is Hawking radiation non-existent, yes or no?
As said, it is a hypothesis. However, unlike your woo woo bullshit, it actually has a firm basis in science.
Your woo woo bullshit is nothing more that pure fantasy. I could write a novel and make money.
rmfr
@Jazz Theist
"I was not talking about the validity of the Bible; I was stating the theme of the Bible."
And so can a Batman (who seeks to right social injustice after his parents were murdered) comic book. Validity must be established first, or the book is just a collection of unproven folk tales.
I don't care what christians think about the bible, as this tells us nothing, subjective views of people with a priori beliefs can't rationally validate anything. You would need to demonstrate objective evidence that a deity exists, and that the bible is derived from it for this "purpose". Simply claiming without proper evidence is meaningless to me sorry. It is a demonstrable fact that humans create fictional deities, and the errancy in the bible mirrors the ignorance and prejudices of the cultures and epoch from which it was derived, that's a compelling reason to support the idea it's origins are all too human. I'd not expect an omniscient trying to communicate with humans to deal in errant allegory, nor am I interested in why believers think this happened. Only what objective evidence they can demonstrate for their beliefs.
''the Bible isn't accurate about everything, therefore God doesn't exist.'' ''I can't believe how God can act in this way, there God doesn't exist.'' This is the personal incredulity fallacy at best. This is somewhat analogous to a young Earth creationist who says, ''I can't believe how Darwin could be right, therefore evolution isn't true''.
And I've come to see--please don't laugh--that atheists seem to have faith that the Bible is invalid, which is circular reasoning. It goes like this: the Bible is invalid because it's ancient superstition; and it's ancient superstitions because it's invalid.
On the other hand, a vast majority of Bible scholars--include atheist ones--all agree on the historical validity of Jesus' Resurrection. To insist otherwise is to claim a conspiracy theory.
By the way, do we have objective hard evidence that Plato and Socrates existed?
@ JazzTheist
Bold text again. Liar. Not one atheist has ever agreed that your Magic Lich Virgin even existed, let alone was resurrected. There is absolutely no OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that Hey-soos (spelling in its correct pronunciation) ever existed. There MAY have been a person who did exist, but he was most likely a homeless bastard child thrown out to survive as best he could. He came up with a plan and convinced a gang of thugs and prostitues to pretend he was the son of the Sky Faerie. He was intelligent enough to spew some fairly decent dialogue, but in the end, the Jews caught and had him executed for his heresay.
There is only one piece of evidence that your Magic Lich Virgin named Hey-soos (spelling in its correct pronunciation) ever existed: the Bible. The only problem here is that the Bible CANNOT be used to prove its own validity. Let's discuss this... (copied and pasted from my treatise linked below)
So, yes. The Bible is invalid. It has never been proven. There is literally no evidence anything written within its pages ever happened. The only thing the writers got correct is about 15% of the locations and their names. Otherwise, nothing in the Bible is accurate. NOTHING.
Yes. There is. There are thousands of pages of documents written by comtemporaries and students. Much more than was ever written about your Magic Lich Virgin named Hey-soos. There is not even a score of pages that even mention Hey-soos. And even then, Hey-soos was mentioned as the basis of a cult movement amongst the people. Not even as a real person.
The Myth of Hey-soos
rmfr
Pages