Stack Exchange
log in

Stevan V. Saban

 Discussion on question by More Anonym…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 28 09:26
Please add your definition of "computation" to your question and include some examples.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: How i…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 16 21:47
@keshlam Thanks! I include natural observations as a type of experiment especially regarding animal behavior in the wild. Since the goal is to observe without influence, there is some experimental design involved when choosing observation spots and observing technologies.
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 16 21:47
Your answers lie in a land philosophers fear to tread: The land of Experimental Science. It's exacting, time consuming, unglamorous, and tedious. But absolutely necessary. An "underdetermination problem" is simply a lack of experimental evidence. You can assign arbitrary probabilities to hypotheses but experiments provide the only evidence thst matters.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: If we…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Apr 28 07:20
Neither sperm or eggs have consciousness yet consciousness emerges from the union.
 

 Discussion on question by TheMatrix E…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jan 28 08:41
"Evolutionary biology cannot answer the question about our (human) origin. " This is true. Evolution is a theory of change with life as a given. It doesn't deal with origin of life.
Stevan V. Saban
Jan 28 08:41
Evolution provides an explanation but that explanation requires data. A detailed knowledge of every generation of life is required to answer specific questions like yours and others like "Why aren't all humans ambidextrous? Why are humans predominantly right handed? Evolution can answer this but detailed historical data is required.
 

 Discussion on question by BoltStorm: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jan 25 12:17
A nice way of understanding Process Philosophy is with the Ship of Thesues paradox. According to Process Philosophy the Ship of Theseus is an ongoing process rather than a collection of materials and parts.
 

 Discussion on question by andre: Is t…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Dec 28, 2024 22:24
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,..Edmund Burke
 

 Discussion on question by TheMatrix E…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.meta.stackexc...
Stevan V. Saban
Dec 26, 2024 09:12
Thanks for your effort providing information and statistics. Its very useful. My only criticism (not your fault) is the lack of similar stats for "Reopen". Right now it's only half the picture
Stevan V. Saban
Dec 26, 2024 09:12
I'll repeat my suggestion to drastically reduce the number of questions an individual user can ask per week. Trying to fix VTC without reducing question load is like trying to fix a badly leaking water pipe while leaving water on. It can be fixed but it will be messy.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: How c…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Dec 8, 2024 07:31
What's the difference between the Sun and the simulated Sun? A florescent light "simulates" the sun but it won't vaporize you if you touch it.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: Is Wi…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Dec 3, 2024 16:08
@Syed Dembski considers improbability and complexity to be equivalent. If you swap complexity for improbability it becomes a duplicate.: ‘Complexity as I am describing it here is a form of probability….’ (Dembski 2000, 27).
Stevan V. Saban
Dec 3, 2024 16:08
This question is similar to: Can we ever infer design purely from improbability?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.
 

 Discussion on question by user80226: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Nov 18, 2024 10:04
If testimony was enough, there would be no need for repeatable experiments.
 

 Discussion on question by user80226: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Nov 2, 2024 10:39
This question is similar to: Does it matter if certain professions have a lower rate of theism, and if so, why does it matter?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.
 

 Discussion on question by Scott Rowe:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Oct 30, 2024 12:08
I consider your examples Trainwreck Topics : You know they are bad but you can't look away. 😉 Don't take it so seriously.
 

 Discussion on question by user80226: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Oct 25, 2024 10:46
It's better to say that each religion has beliefs and practices that can be treated as theory in the same way that science has beliefs and practices that are treated as theory. For religion these include the afterlife, the nature of God's existence, and the resurrection of Jesus. Each religion has individual beliefs about each.
 

 Discussion on answer by Idiosyncratic…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Oct 17, 2024 16:40
@user80226 My objection is the creation of an analogy to describe the function of DNA and then applying all the attributes of the analogy to DNA. It's a fallacy that involves analogies. The false/weak analogy fallacy was the closest.
 

 Discussion on question by Flynn Fehre…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Oct 13, 2024 16:25
"Possible thoughts" needs some attention. An individual cannot have an infinite number of thoughts. Does every person who has lived had an "original thought"? If so, then collectively, as a species, the number of unique thoughts will approach infinity as long as humans exist. If uniqueness is not required, then the number of thoughts approaches infinity faster.
 

 Discussion on question by Amelia Sala…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Oct 12, 2024 17:00
Hi Amelia, I'm curious as to whether any of the answers/comments have helped you? You are a new user and this question seems to have taken on its own life.
 

 Discussion on question by user80226: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Sep 27, 2024 07:07
This question walks a thin line between legitimacy and anthropomorphism. I can't find any evidence of another form of life besides human beings that create simulations. I havent seen a religious text or document that mentions simulations or anything similar. That would make humans the only lifeform that creates simulations. So applying the simulation concept to the universe or an entity outside the universe seems like anthropomorphism.
 

 Discussion on question by user80226: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Sep 17, 2024 14:39
Lol. @user80226 I have no idea why God does what He does. Mosquitos are a complete mystery to me. My point is that free will which allows the concept of love freely given also allows for sin. Its a philosophical justification for sin.
Stevan V. Saban
Sep 17, 2024 14:39
This related to free will or "Why did God give us free will?" It is free will that allows one to choose a sinful path. Love of God is only real if that love is given freely. A perfectly good person created by God cannot make any choice other than to love God.
 

 Discussion on question by TheMatrix E…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Sep 2, 2024 15:25
Reasons to close: Your question is asking about psychology. Your question has nothing to do with Atheism or is simply asking for an atheists opinion
 

 Discussion on answer by BioPhysicist:…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Stevan V. Saban
Aug 27, 2024 20:34
What is the relationship between the work required to evacuate the ballast tanks and the work done by the buoyant force to raise the submarine? Are they equal?
 

 Discussion on question by Scott Rowe:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jul 29, 2024 18:00
Curiosity is more important than knowledge -- Albert Einstein
 

 Discussion on question by Hudjefa: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jul 10, 2024 04:52
@Kaia Thanks for the link and a quote from the best answer: "It comes down to the definition of "number," as well as the definition of "infinity." Personally I don't think it's worth having an opinion on this subject; there are more precise words than "number" and "infinity" in mathematics."
 

 Discussion on question by Scott Rowe:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 9, 2024 20:32
@ScottRowe Not until they become "curious". Right now AI has no concept of curiosity.
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 9, 2024 20:32
A computer cannot design an artificial system that can perform the tasks a computer performs with a 100x improvement. Humans have done this: creating computers that perform tasks that offer at least 100x improvement over human performance of the same task.
 

 Discussion on answer by J D: Can one …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Mar 22, 2024 16:29
One can't be cruel to a chair. But a poorly designed chair can indifferently inflict pain and suffering to the user ( back pain, neck pain, etc.) I have, in the past, banished these cruel chairs to Goodwill.
 

 Discussion on question by Baby_philos…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Feb 4, 2024 12:54
The belief in something without "novel testable predictions" is the definition of faith and its what separates science from religion.
 

 Discussion on question by 8Mad0Manc8:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jan 16, 2024 19:19
@8Mad0Manc8 Programs and programmers are terms specific to computer science. In that context, all programs have a programmer. Can that concept be applied as a general universal principle? Are the steps to create water from hydrogen and oxygen a program that has a programmer? IMHO, this terminology is to simplistic to be applied at the universal level.
Stevan V. Saban
Jan 16, 2024 19:19
@8Mad0Manc8. A program is really nothing more than a set of instructions that provide a service ot function.
Stevan V. Saban
Jan 16, 2024 19:19
DNA is arguably a program with a coding language. Who is the programmer?
 

 Discussion on answer by Marco Ocram: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Dec 15, 2023 19:41
@Olivier5 There was a question posted in the Meta that addresses your comment. philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5542/67687
 

 Discussion on question by prof_post: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Oct 4, 2023 07:44
How does euthanasia fit in? Is a death that relieves intense suffering considered harmless? Or even beneficial?
 

 Discussion on question by Stevan V. S…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Aug 3, 2023 12:28
@Rushi Scott Rowe stated:"* What I want to know is whether the name has primarily machine behind it, or human. *" Me too. But as I've said, I don't know how this will be accomplished so I have "contrived" an issue of anonymity as a starting point. But the "problem" is certainly not going be solved with "I am not a robot" checkboxes
Stevan V. Saban
Aug 3, 2023 12:28
@ScottRowe I'm actually feeling the hidden benefit is the elimination of my ability to be a lazy thinker. My level of diligence goes up a notch when I'm using the Internet for information because of the increased threat of deception.
Stevan V. Saban
Aug 3, 2023 12:28
@Davor So a positive aspect of anonymity from a programming standpoint is the ability to write and test natural language software without the knowledge of the people using it. Like a blind or double blind experiment.
Stevan V. Saban
Aug 3, 2023 12:28
@ScottRowe The knowledge of whether an online interaction is with a human or machine will come with a price and that price may be the sacrifice or restriction of current freedoms like anonymity
Stevan V. Saban
Aug 3, 2023 12:28
@ScottRowe My definition of anonymity is broad. It includes posing as another human by use of deception.
 

 Discussion on question by Scott Rowe:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jul 25, 2023 09:10
Lol. Hey I said squirrels! Everyone knows what math geniuses dogs are. Nothing more fun than explaining to a dog why it's food is late due to Daylight Savings Time. They still don't believe me.
Stevan V. Saban
Jul 25, 2023 09:10
@ScottRowe I am still trying to grasp the conclusions made by squirrels as they jump from branch to branch with absolutely no maths required. Not even a number system. AI has a long way to go. I'll definitely check out Gibson. Thanks.
Stevan V. Saban
Jul 25, 2023 09:10
@LudwigV Wow! I wonder what artificial hallucinations would "look" like? There are laws (at the least, rules if conduct) that prevent humans from fabricating sources that can be applied to ChatGPT. ChatGPT is only as "smart" as the information it accesses.
Stevan V. Saban
Jul 25, 2023 09:10
So far, I've seen nothing from ChatGPT that I couldn't find online or in an encyclopedia. ChatGPT just saves time. The Internet has been built on anonymity; You don't really have any idea who I am. The only difference now is I may or may not be human. But it does not change how I evaluate anything I read from the Internet and everything from ChatGPT is Internet based. So it really shouldn't be trusted at face value. As long as ChatGPT backs up its writing with references to source documents , I don't care if a machine summarizes it for me. The burden is on me to determine the validity
 

 Discussion on question by thinkingman…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 26, 2023 06:10
Is evidence additive? How many pieces of weak evidence is equal to one piece of strong evidence
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 26, 2023 06:10
Weak evidence leads to weak truths.
 

 Discussion on answer by Dcleve: Does …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 7, 2023 04:12
@JD I agree!! Fortunately, the scientific method accounts for this by open peer review. All the work Pons and Fleischmann did was real science and their mistake was discovered by open peer review. All the cold fusion claims occurring after this were pseudoscience driven by greed or dreams of power.
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 7, 2023 04:12
The story of cold fusion (Pons and Fleischmann 1990s) is a nice example science vs pseudoscience. Cold fusion conferences were being held long after Pons and Fleischmanns were shown to be incorrect .
Stevan V. Saban
Jun 7, 2023 04:12
In the early 1900s, a theory was proposed that the wavelike nature of light meant light propagated through an aether. This was not pseudoscience, it was an incorrect theory. Timing and attitude are important, but a methodology that allows for open exchange of information and experiments that skeptics can repeat and offer alternative explanations to is less likely to produce pseudoscience. Anyone advocating a theory that has been replaced by a more "correct" theory is in danger of promoting pseudoscience.