(January 20, 2015 at 4:25 am)Stimbo Wrote: What makes the solar plasma luminous?

Photon emission.

How are the photons produced?

(January 20, 2015 at 4:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: How are the photons produced?

By the photon monster

(January 20, 2015 at 4:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: How are the photons produced?

Black body radiation

How is this radiation produced?

(January 20, 2015 at 4:46 am)Stimbo Wrote: How is this radiation produced?

Ions give up some of their energy as light as the body moves toward thermodynamic equilibrium.

I know where you are going, but the point I am trying to make is there is a lot of stuff happening the system we call a star. It is simply inaccurate to call a star a thermonuclear reaction when there is a whole lot of other stuff going on too. Chas is conflating one process that happens within a star with the star itself. Don't make the same error he is making.

(January 20, 2015 at 5:12 am)Heywood Wrote:

(January 20, 2015 at 4:46 am)Stimbo Wrote: How is this radiation produced?

Ions give up some of their energy as light as the body moves toward thermodynamic equilibrium.

I know where you are going, but the point I am trying to make is there is a lot of stuff happening the system we call a star. It is simply inaccurate to call a star a thermonuclear reaction when there is a whole lot of other stuff going on too. Chas is conflating one process that happens within a star with the star itself. Don't make the same error he is making.

A star is a thermonuclear reactor. It takes protons and makes helium nuclei through a series of nuclear processes. Like any nuclear reactor, it also makes other stuff as well like light, neutrinos, neutrons, lithium, etc. Other stuff the sun does (like be a huge gravitational well) doesn't mean it stops being a thermonuclear reactor.

(January 19, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Define unambiguous in the context you're using it.

An example too broad to be evaluated. Rhythm's example of a procedural generation for instance. What specific procedural generation is he talking about? When you gave "biological evolution" as an example, I knew what you were talking about.

Procedural generation is something so broad it doesn't help us one iota to determine if something requires intellect or not. It is like "a collection of atoms". A car is a collection of atoms. Collections of atoms have been shown to exist without the need of an intellect....therefore cars do not require intellects. Of course that is ludicrous. Well we know cars do require intellects because certain kinds of collections of atoms require intellects and other kinds do not. Cars happen to be the kind of collections of atoms which require intellects.

If Rhythm wants to claim that evolution is a procedural generation and that ALL procedural generations do not require intellects to be implemented....that is fine. Let him make a case that all conceivable procedural generations do not require intellects to be implemented. Anyone with half a brain knows there are implementations of procedural generations that only exist because intellects were here to implement them.

(January 20, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Heywood Wrote: An example too broad to be evaluated. Rhythm's example of a procedural generation for instance. What specific procedural generation is he talking about?

Any, none have a requirement of intellect - by definition. When something is a matter of definition - that's the opposite of ambiguity.
(perhaps you need a definition for ambiguity as well?)

Quote:Procedural generation is something so broad it doesn't help us one iota to determine if something requires intellect or not.

It's very finite and well defined, and it -does- help us to determine whether or not something requires intellect. If something is being handled by procedural generation - it doesn't, end of - even if an intellect is present.

Quote:If Rhythm wants to claim that evolution is a procedural generation and that ALL procedural generations do not require intellects to be implemented....that is fine.

I didn't claim that, you made that claim. Nevertheless, no procedural generation has any requirement of intellect. Again, it's a matter of definition. That some elements of biological evolution are handled -by- procedural generation doesn't make the whole thing procedural generation...but it is incidentally damning for your claim.

Quote: Let him make a case that all conceivable procedural generations do not require intellects to be implemented.

There is only one "conceivable procedural generation" that -is- procedural generation, and procedural generation is defined as something which does not have a requirement of intellect. There is no fucking case you moron - that's what they are, that's how we know we're looking at a pocedural generation, that's what the term refers to.

This cannot be explained more simply to you, or more often.

Quote:Anyone with half a brain knows there are implementations of procedural generations that only exist because intellects were here to implement them.

As anyone with half a brain knows that implementation is a different subject entirely - but it doesn't matter..because even though there are implementations which intellects do "create" - there are implementations which intellects do not (and that list of those implementations not created by intellect is vast in comparison - we haven't been using procedural generation for as long as it's existed - which..as far as we can tell....has existed as long as our universe has as a function of logic in a universe where logic is possible).

I knew you couldn't let it go.lol. Too bad, there's no play for you here - you should have done the research before you sunk your argument into it. Lets move on to your other observations..because now that this one is off the list...I'm starting to wonder if you have -any-, and we're still in a position where you have no valid structure for inference -even if you did-. I'm fairly certain your claim can't be salvaged. If it could be, you'd have done so by now. You really needed that spider sim, and even with it, you still had a ways to go before you had a competent argument.

(January 20, 2015 at 4:05 am)Heywood Wrote:

(January 19, 2015 at 6:10 pm)Chas Wrote: We have never seen a thermonuclear reaction come into existence except with intellect, i.e. H-bomb, Tokamak reactor

The sun is a thermonuclear reaction.

---

We did not see the sun come into existence.

Therefor, the sun required an intellect.

In fact, all stars require an intellect.

Isn't that your argument, Heywood?

---

The sun is not a thermonuclear reaction. A sun is a luminous sphere of plasma held together by its own gravity. We have observed gravity holding matter together without the aid of intellects.

Do you even science? What makes a star luminous?

The difference between a star and any other ball of gas is the thermonuclear reactor at its core.

Quote:Further we have several observations of stars in various stages of being "born" and none of those observations include intellects....except maybe this one:

---

That could be God sending you a message Chas.

---

Your desperation is taking you to new lows.