"A gentle answer deflects anger, but harsh words make tempers flare."
Proverbs 15:1
"If your enemies are hungry, give them food to eat.
If they are thirsty, give them water to drink.
You will heap burning coals of shame on their heads,
and the LORD will reward you."
I'm glad I finished the series of questions because it was fun to see how my values compared to others on the results page.
They were exploring moral relativism scenarios in schools back in the 1960's. The open machine intelligence part seems to be just good window dressing (I clicked after all). It isn't about machines as much as human psychology. I doubt autonomous cars are going to be programmed to take potential fatalities fitness, gender, or profession into account.
"The researchers found that there was considerable variation in how much wisdom people showed from one situation to the next."
It sounds to me that the study's questions likely rely on a very specific understanding of what wisdom is. Whoever wrote those questions must be very wise indeed! (sarcasm)
The OP made a side-comment about 'idea of naturalness' being a philosophical tenet. That's a problem because science claims to be philosophically neutral, which is impossible.
Science looks for a system which can exist without supernatural intervention, but the creation of time/space/matter doesn't fit within those constraints.
Admittedly that is a philosophical or even theological take, but at least it's honest.
>Science looks for a system which can exist without supernatural intervention, but the creation of time/space/matter doesn't fit within those constraints.
So our universe must fundamentally be a supernatural creation?
That's an extraordinary claim, what is your evidence? We currently have insufficient data and incomplete theories to fully describe the origins of the universe, sure. But how is this different from someone 500 years ago saying:
"Science looks for a system which can exist without supernatural intervention, but the creation of the Earth and humanity doesn't fit within those constraints."
>So our universe must fundamentally be a supernatural creation?
In my comment I wasn't making the argument that our universe must fundamentally be a supernatural creation. I was trying to show that presupposing it is a natural creation is not philosophically neutral, especially when what we have observed naturally seems to oppose the idea of energy or matter coming out of nowhere.
>What is your evidence?
From my perspective, accepting the probability of a transcendent creator is a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the existence of the universe. I realize that will be judged to be a 'faith position', but from my perspective so is supposing it could exist on it's own.
I think you're misreading the article. Science is about theory and observation, with no presumption that the latter must fit the former.
As much as a physicist might hope to uncover a universal law that is simple enough for children to memorize yet subtle enough to warrant a lifetime of learning to fully understand, nature is perfectly content with fundamental parameters that settle into working values completely at random.
Fair enough. He was specifically speaking to 'naturalness' as technical designation in physics. I am getting a little more general.
The scientific method seeks to be entirely empirical - which makes sense for understanding what we can observe.
But what happens when what you are trying to understand is not observable? You fool yourself if you think you are being empirical when you are not. (His comment about moving the yardsticks applies here).
Any endeavor to understand the universe, especially origins, ends up involving philosophical presuppositions. Science aspires to avoid that, but can it?
You may want to consider masking the shoe flavor with BBQ sauce. :) Google Trends reports that people have been searching for Julie in bursts over the last decade. It's interesting to say the least: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=julie%20rubicon&cmpt...
Nice game. Something weird can happen in the brain when we have to choose a binary answer under pressure. Maybe the fact that we are answering positively for prime (which is not the default) adds to that. For me it helped to rename 'yes' to 'prime' and 'no' to 'divisible'.
Same here. What happened to me is, instead of asking myself "Is this a prime number?" I
kept starting to ask myself "Can this number be expressed as a multiplication of two other numbers?" for which the answers are obviously reversed.
Finding divisors is often hard when your number is large. It turns out the condition that a number n can be expressed as a multiple of two other numbers is equivalent to there being a number z less than n except for 1 and n-1 so that (z^2 mod n) == 1.
This condition is the basis of the Miller-Rabin primality test. Sadly its a bit hard for humans to implement this algorithm for mentally proving primality.
Yes, I found the UX aspect here interesting as it twisted my brain a bit too. A current example of this is the Brexit referendum, where the question was initially posed as a Yes or No, but required revision to a "Remain" or "Leave", which is much easier for casual observers to grok and lets people get behind their favourite actual position instead of embracing an arbitrary Boolean value (as happened with the Scottish referendum's Yes and No camps).
Also, Prime itself is a tricky term for a Yes-No question as it's really a negative concept - the absence of something. So asking if X is prime is requiring double-negative logic in the same way as an app setting like "Disable X feature [On / Off]".
