Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "‘Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer’ - Sir Roger Penrose" video.

  1. It amazes me how a world famous smart man like Penrose, who claims not to believe in God, can surrender to personally generated woo such as the idea that the universe had the purpose of bringing about intelligent human life. It's even worse than religion - pure superstitious intuition.
    7
  2. What an indictment of the education system. "You can't take that combination of subjects that inspires you." Krishnan nodding along and doing his best to pretend his has the slightest clue what Penrose is talking about with the collapse of the wave function.
    6
  3.  @AnkeshKumar-du1dm  "all that exists in the universe does not furnish an evidence of its existence to mere mortals" If it has not furnished evidence, how do you know it exists? "Many a hypotheses and presuppositions in the field of science have ultimately proved to be actually true and valid after being pursued and researched for rationally and objectively primarily because someone trusted their hunch and belief without calling into equation a requirement for an evidence of any sort." Absolutely wrong and frankly disingenuous. All science is based upon observation THEN hypothesis. Also Occam's razor applies. No scientist says "Here's an observation, let's discard the rational, minimum assumption theory, and go instead with a vastly more complicated one for which there is no evidence."
    3
  4.  @AnkeshKumar-du1dm  The absence of evidence may not disprove something, but without evidence, why would you ever believe it in the first place?! If you don't require evidence, I could make any fantastical claim, then when challenged, simply offer the same comment you just did. Also, when the claim itself, contradicts all known laws of existence, and carries with it a logic that is self undermining, it all becomes a bit silly.
    2
  5.  @AnkeshKumar-du1dm  "actually complimentary to the superscience called spirituality" Now you're just talking pure woo. I suspect if you asked 10 different people what you mean by "spirituality" you'd get 10 different answers, none of which can be used to measure the real world or make usable predictions. As for your closeing statement, yes, science has value. That's the whole point of this discussion. Science does - God belief does not.
    2
  6.  @AnkeshKumar-du1dm  "superscience" is just another woo word to attempt to lend your beliefs more weight and credibility than they merit by stealing the word "science" then merging it with Eastern philosophical practices. I don't deny that spirituality may yield a different perspective on existence, but there is nothing that does not ultimately fall within the remit of good old regular science. With each day that we comprehend the workings of the universe and our brains better, even spirituality yields to dissection. "Woo" means quackery disguised in scientifiic language. It's the language of snake oil salesmen and Indian mystics who claim not to have eaten for 70 years.
    2
  7.  @AnkeshKumar-du1dm  I'm not coining a "neologism" - I'm using one of the common definitions of the word. Your increasingly petulant and artless responses reveal your growing frustration at being unable baffle me with bullshit. This message is the clearest example yet. The fact that science cannot achieve the impossible, nor knows everything about everything is not a failure as you appear to be implying; rather it is simply a fact of reality. Even if there was a god (which there is not in the Christian sense of the word), it would have limitations of knowledge and ability. Anything else would be a logical contradiction. It could not, for example, be certain that there was not a MORE supreme being that hid its existence from IT. As for the fact that a tiny percentage of families require children to make appointments to see their parents is utterly irrelevant. You're also incorrect when you intimate that this is a recent phenomenon - for over two thousand years, the wealthy have had wet nurses because they don't wish to perform the most fundamental parenting role themselves, and in many cultures, children have simply been shipped off to schools or residences so that parents are not burdened with the effort of raising them. Frankly, your side of the conversation degraded into absolute absurdity several comments ago. You use a lot of big words (which is the trademark of the Indian pseudo-mystic BTW), but your desperate flailing and constant throwing of handfuls of unrelated mud at the wall to see if any will stick, is utterly transparent. Sadly, you are seriously outmatched. Especially as you are simply incorrect in the underlying themes that you are using your disparate statements to illustrate. I had hoped that you might have some interesting perspectives, but it's painfully clear that you are just another woo peddlar who couches his desperate need for a sky daddy in big words. We're done. There is NOTHING that you can add that I will even bother to read. You had your chance.
    2
  8.  @ThatHippyPerson  Of course consciousness is personal. I don't even know what you mean by the second sentence, Rights are granted not innate. The only rights that you truly have, are those that you are willing to take.
    2
  9.  @ThatHippyPerson  Ohhhh word salad. I see. If you decide to say anything coherent, let me know.
    2
  10.  @AnkeshKumar-du1dm  With each passing day, the "evidence" for God diminishes as our scientific knowledge grows. When we were scientifically illiterate, we saw him EVERYWHERE - every bolt of lightning, every loud noise, every death or illness. Yes, the evidence for oxygen was impossible to read before 1774, yet its existence could perfectly well be inferred if our knowledge of biology comprehended its function. What is the "evidence" for God that is not perfectly well explained by naturalistic forces? As I see it, you are simply proposing a God of the gaps argument.
    1
  11.  @ThatHippyPerson  I think it's time for your medication.
    1