You were 2 in 1992?? Jesus Christ I'm old.

Agreed.. Or the more I know about consciousness, the more I know that I don't know! Moreover, the box of the wetware just seems insufficient to contain the entirety of consciousness as a mere epiphenomenon of chemical or biological occurrence. Merleau-Ponty's book, "Study of Beahavior" is simply the best jumping off point for all phenomenological study of psychology.

And.. while there are semantic engines being developed for AI, it seems highly dubious to me that computers will ever fully recognize/appreciate the duplicitous meaning of puns and irony, which, it seems to me, requires a human understanding.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Thanks, GeeSuss. Dreyfus has done some wonderful work, including his 1979 book, "What Computers Can't Do" (and the 1992 follow-up, "What Computers Still Can't Do"). I'm curious to read his most recent book (2011), "All Things Shining."
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I find this to be a good sister link is the phenomenology direction.


Indeed, he is a close proxy of one of my more favorite recent philosophers of science, Hillary Putnam. I haven't read that book either, sounds awesome. I used to be an AI is possible guy, but had the "syntax from semantics" impossibility problem that others have had as well. Seems hard to get anything other than rules when you start with rules. The more I think I know about mind, consciousness, human experience, and knowledge in general, the less I know that I know.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Thanks, GeeSuss. Dreyfus has done some wonderful work, including his 1979 book, "What Computers Can't Do" (and the 1992 follow-up, "What Computers Still Can't Do"). I'm curious to read his most recent book (2011), "All Things Shining."
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I find this to be a good sister link is the phenomenology direction.



Indeed, he is a close proxy of one of my more favorite recent philosophers of science, Hillary Putnam. I haven't read that book either, sounds awesome. I used to be an AI is possible guy, but had the "syntax from semantics" impossibility problem that others have had as well. Seems hard to get anything other than rules when you start with rules. The more I think I know about mind, consciousness, human experience, and knowledge in general, the less I know that I know.

Replaced video embed code with backup #1992 (supplied by member geo321) - embed replaced by member BoneRemake.

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

Remember that golfer with the big ears elected by the perpetually-fooled in 2008? His lapdog media's been lying about a "recovery" for some time now. 22% unemployment, gas and food through the roof, hyperinflation.

Palin couldn't fk things up any more than the thugs in power now. You may not know it, but the leftmedia knows she can beat His Earness next year, and so the hammering continues...

It's too bad we can't always have a brilliant genius like Joe Biden in high office, or this clown:

"Who are these people????" --supergenius Al Gore at Monticello (Jefferson's home) just before the 1992 inauguration, with news reporters present, pointing to busts of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin (New York Times, January 17, 1993)

In reply to this comment by 9547bis:
Great sift.
However your summary is incorrect: this is the documentary Spin, released in 1995 and covering the influence of the media during the 1992 presidential election, and how those who understood the media's mentality and technology got to win (namely Bill Clinton, who won the election, and Pat Robertson, whose faction took over the Republican Party). So maybe adding "Spin" as a tag is in order.

The segment about Larry Agran, I am told by Wikipedia, has become a kind of textbook example of how a candidate can be brought down by a media blackout (he was one of the top four Democratic candidates, yet was disturbingly ignored by the media, and was excluded from all TV debates).

gah..it was a dupe.
whats even more pathetic is i had already seen that duc.
man...i suck.
thanks for the heads up bud.

Great sift.
However your summary is incorrect: this is the documentary Spin, released in 1995 and covering the influence of the media during the 1992 presidential election, and how those who understood the media's mentality and technology got to win (namely Bill Clinton, who won the election, and Pat Robertson, whose faction took over the Republican Party). So maybe adding "Spin" as a tag is in order.

The segment about Larry Agran, I am told by Wikipedia, has become a kind of textbook example of how a candidate can be brought down by a media blackout (he was one of the top four Democratic candidates, yet was disturbingly ignored by the media, and was excluded from all TV debates).

Good stuff. U2 used this in their ZooTV 1992 tour to intro the show. I crank this on the way to work and yell along with it, it's like a 3rd cup of coffee.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Intro to Batman: The Animated Series (1992). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

He split the yes vote. I mean, that's what he did. It's like me writing a poll:

Should KP be stripped of his clothing?
-Yes (10 votes)
-No, he probably shouldn't. (7 votes)
-No, but that would be hilarious. (4 votes)
-No, why is this even a poll?! (8 votes)
-No, because I don't want to see that. (7 votes)

Who says you can combine two choices into one so you can declare a tie or a victory over a third choice? The 'no' voters have the plurality, so we won. If a plurality was good enough to get Slick Willie elected in 1992 then it's good enough for our little pack of nerd/degenerates. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dag:


OK, so, here's the way I think we should interpret this:

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rts, westwood, prewarcraft' to 'rts, westwood, prewarcraft, dune, intro, cinematic, 1992' - edited by gwiz665

>> ^nock:

Yes, evidently I said deflation by definition = deflationary spiral... NOT. Also, you found a single article that says that the link between deflation and depression is "not closely related", written by 2 guys no one would consider economics titans by any means. They couldn't even support an argument saying it was not related. The preponderance of evidence supports deflation as a bad thing - I don't deny that there are people who suggest it's not related to bad things, but then again there are people who believe in Dianetics and Jeebus...
If you'd like to ignore the evidence, that's your choice. Doesn't make it right.


Unrelated personal attacks. If reports from the Fed itself aren't evidence, then it is a mirror on yourself I point your comment at me at. Here is a corresponding phot
o of inflation cycles that have non-corresponding "Great Depressions" in American history.


As to a fallacy of an appeal to authority has been invoked, I site their qualifications.

Patrick J. Kehoe - Patrick received his B.A. in Mathematics and Russian from Providence College in 1978 and his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University in 1986. A prolific researcher, Patrick has published in numerous prestigious publications, including Journal of International Economics, Econometrica, International Economic Review, and Journal of Economic Theory. He currently serves on several editorial boards and is a Fellow of the Econometric Society.

Throughout his career, Patrick has advised numerous Ph.D. students. He has been awarded several grants, including six from the National Science Foundation. His research focuses on monetary policy, time consistency and financial crises.

Andrew Atkeson - Ph.D. Economics, 1988 Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. Grants and Awards:
National Science Foundation Grants
1991-1993 with Robert E. Lucas, Jr.
1992-1994 with Masao Ogaki
1995-1997 with Patrick Kehoe
1997-2000
2000-2004 with Fernando Alvarez
2005-2008 with Ariel Burstein
2006-2009 with Harold Cole

More scholarly than you or I in the field I would wager. Accepting only main stream editorials (this source was actually a wiki article source) tends to fuel a group think which I never like to completely engage in, which is why I frequently view posts from Netrunner and the like. A healthy dose of life from a different perspective keeps ya honest. Anyway, please take this as it was meant, a nice conversation about a subject we both find interesting and controversial. Take the teeth off your comments as I wasn't meaning to make anyone's blood boil.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

>> ^harry:
And as a herp derp Yurpean, I'm struck by that little American flag there. Is that a fairly normal thing in classrooms?

Students are lead in the pledge of allegiance (to the flag) every morning. So every room where students may start the day needs a flag.


Only in some states. The number of such states increased a bit in the post-911 jingoism. For example in Missouri we had to say the pledge daily until about 1992, then it was removed in favor of actually spending that time learning something, and then in 2002 Missouri's congress passed a law that forced my school district to do the pledge once a week. I think the pledge of allegiance is creepy because it simultaneously resembles both Nazi Germany and The Borg.