Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanYou mean the entity in the foreground?


    It might have been taken 50 odd years ago after I spent to long asleep in the tanning booth.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: Trim
    Posted By: loremanAngus is merely exercising his prerogative as a senior academic to ensure that Science is not sullied distracted byimpuritiesfresh ideas half-baked nonsense.


    FTFY
  1.  
    I'm at pains to point out that "half-baked" does not ipso facto imply nonsense.

    Example: A cake.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
     
    just so. But distracted implies distracted. So bake these things first, please.
  2.  
    Tautologically done!
  3.  
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanWe should breed a machine species of scientists to study the millions of species' correlations between phenotype and genotype. Too much work for us.
    Actually, I'm dead serious. It's a hugely time-consuming task to accurately correlate just a single trait in a single subspecies with a gene expression, or an interrelated set of them. Just look at the breeding of dogs. And make no mistake - there's gold in them thar hills.

    I envisage a big box. It's a lab. Inputs are power and raw materials. Outputs are information and incinerated organic waste. Massive AI, robots and automated lab equipment are the only actors in this play. Press the Start button and wait.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: Trim
    Posted By: loremanAngus is merely exercising his prerogative as a senior academic to ensure that Science is not sullied distracted by festooned with impurities fresh ideas half-baked nonsense.


    FTFY


    FTFY.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
     
    Posted By: Andrew Palfreyman
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanWe should breed a machine species of scientists to study the millions of species' correlations between phenotype and genotype. Too much work for us.
    Actually, I'm dead serious. It's a hugely time-consuming task to accurately correlate just a single trait in a single subspecies with a gene expression, or an interrelated set of them. Just look at the breeding of dogs. And make no mistake - there's gold in them thar hills.

    I envisage a big box. It's a lab. Inputs are power and raw materials. Outputs are information and incinerated organic waste. Massive AI, robots and automated lab equipment are the only actors in this play. Press the Start button and wait.


    I thought that's what we were doing with our headlong rush to become one great constantly communicating mass within the overarching chiposphere-"just park your consciousness over there in facebookworld for a second sir whilst we do some Genetic Science".
  4.  
    No, that's just froth on the daydream (pace Vian). I'm talking about hard science with test tubes and shit.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanI'm at pains to point out that "half-baked" does notipso factoimply nonsense.

    Example: A cake.

    In any case, 'half-baked nonsense' clearly implies half-baked nonsense.
  5.  
    and rose implies rose.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
     
    Posted By: Andrew Palfreymanand rose implies rose.

    implies rose.

    G. Stein.
  6.  
    I've always been (albeit distantly) fascinated by axiomatic systems. Like e.g. Peano arithmetic. In walks Gödel and Turing and Church and suddenly my head is spinning. But it shows that there is such a thing as a minimum set of self-consistent (i.e. non-contradictory) axioms from which entire systems of mathematics can be constructed. Does mathematics respect Occam? Why?
  7.  
    If Occam and Gödel had a duel, who would win?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
     
    Goedel. He has the advantage of being able to study Occam's earlier fights.
  8.  
    Gödel. He knows things that Occam cannot know.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
     
    Why have you raised Occam?
  9.  
    Because I mentioned a minimum set. Thus parsimony.
    Physics works like that - but does maths?
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
     
    Oh. I thought it was because you were an Occam raiser.
  10.  
    *thud*