(November 7, 2016 at 9:03 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(November 7, 2016 at 8:08 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: You postulate quite the theistic behaviour.

No, actually I don't. But I guess you're entitled to your opinion, which is honestly, all you have in this thread.

I have utilized not, any opinion|faith|belief.
By extension, I need not.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing task:
Identify a single opinionated sequence of mine. (Via the original post, or otherwise)

(November 7, 2016 at 9:50 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

(November 7, 2016 at 9:03 am)Nymphadora Wrote: No, actually I don't. But I guess you're entitled to your opinion, which is honestly, all you have in this thread.

I have utilized not, any opinion|faith|belief.
By extension, I need not.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing task:
Identify a single opinionated sequence of mine.

Denial dude. The fact that you boldly assumed I took a theistic view, when in fact, I did no such thing, only proves it was your opinion and NOT a fact.

You can sympathize with others or show empathy, but you cannot tell someone what they are thinking or how they are feeling, for the simple fact that YOU are not THEM. Any attempts to do so are pure opinion and speculation and nothing else.

Next.

(November 7, 2016 at 9:13 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Skype - translates 40+ languages  using neural models

Translating more languages =/= translating any of them better.

Quote:Watson - exceeded two best jeopardy players,

In ability; not in intelligence. Just like chess.

Quote: diagnoses diseases better than human doctors

Considering you think translating more languages equates to translating better when it doesn't, and considering how irrational you have been thus far, I strongly suspect you're wrong here too. I mean, I'm basically certain. The best diagnosticians are humans, not A.I.s. If an A.I. can diagnose more diseases it doesn't make it a better diagnostician. Just as Skype being able to translate so many languages doesn't mean it translates any of them better than a human.

I think you need to get better at logic. Programming ability doesn't make you logical. You've been very fallacious since you joined.

It's interesting that PGJ mentions Jeremy England for some unexplained reason yet England's research is very much related to what I was talking about with regards to self organisation.

Just got done reading the first couple pages of this thread and...what the fuck did I just read?

(November 7, 2016 at 9:56 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(November 7, 2016 at 9:50 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: I have utilized not, any opinion|faith|belief.
By extension, I need not.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing task:
Identify a single opinionated sequence of mine.

Denial dude. The fact that you boldly assumed I took a theistic view, when in fact, I did no such thing, only proves it was your opinion and NOT a fact.

You can sympathize with others or show empathy, but you cannot tell someone what they are thinking or how they are feeling, for the simple fact that YOU are not THEM. Any attempts to do so are pure opinion and speculation and nothing else.

Next.

Theists tend to deliberately ignore statistics..

---

(November 7, 2016 at 10:19 am)Mathilda Wrote: It's interesting that PGJ mentions Jeremy England for some unexplained reason yet England's research is very much related to what I was talking about with regards to self organisation.

Dissipative adaptation applies amidst matter (and likely adequate SIMULATION par such) whence said matter attributes life like properties as time diverges.. (AS I EXPRESSED PRIOR)

Albeit, in the attribution of like like properties, self-organization is quintessentially observed...