So William Dembski – in addition to histrionically closing discussion after my simple yet devastating objection to his ego-maniacal self-praise made him “weary” – has now deleted my comment altogether on The Panda’s Thumb. Several individuals, including Mr. Tomato Guy, have asked for the original comment. Although my victory over Dembski is now being trumpeted throughout the scientific community, I’ll post it here for posterity.
Not to burst your bubbles, but this isn’t actually a pro-ID article. It’s more about math than anything else.
Lastly, a video about Dembski becoming “weary”:
Go see over at the Panda’s Thumb where my very, very simple objection to Dembski’s theories makes him go totally berserk and shut off all comments for the blog. Talk about a lack of an open mind.
Why does he claim he shuts them off? Because he is “weary.” In addition to being very womanly [this annoys him because he is a Republican, not because women are bad - it is a major insult to women in fact to be so compared], this response to me shows how Dembski absolutely hates peer-review. They always act like they want peer-review, but when they get an actual peer (me) to review them, their brains shut off. Amazing.
You can’t make this stuff up.
We knew robots were smart. And we knew they were evil. But did we know they were dishonest? New research, linked in the last word of the previous sentence, shows that robotic technology tends toward lies. Now you might say, “The robots are lying to each other, not us.” But according to Professor Wendy Berry Mendes, lying to yourself is the same as lying to others. And according to Professor Robert Feldman, liars are everywhere. Ergos, lying robots, if allowed to “evolve” as the original article states, will eventually be everywhere, and lying to everyone. This is horrifying.
No matter what talking tomato guy thinks, we should definitely not give such robots “rights,” as if they were corporations. As I had to explain to him:
(1) We need less rights, not more.
(2) For example, corporations have rights, and they are much more intelligent than robots.
(3) But corporations shouldn’t have rights.
(4) Ergos, robots shouldn’t have rights
Quod Errata Demonstrum, moi amigoes.
Alexander Pruss thinks life is either like a painting or a puzzle. This, he says, is “not … unattractive.” Sure, but it’s also not accurate.
I have developed a maximally accurate diagram of the structure of the human life span.
Please see my glossary of terms for a working definition of the “Conveyor Belt Model of Human Existence.”
Attentive readers will have noticed that I have never before talked about Crows. If you look at this frightening picture you will understand:
First I heard a terrifying story on NPR, where co-Professors of doom Kevin Mcgowan and John Marzluff explain how crows can single out individual humans for mass rejection by the worldwide crow community. Can you believe it? If you anger one crow, it will squawk at you around other crows, who will then learn your face and squawk at your around more crows, until it gets around to every crow ever born. That’s terrifying. So wherever Professors McGowan and Marzluff go, crows go crazy around them, following them and shrieking at them, rather like Nazgul.
But I wasn’t going to post on it. Yet today I sit down in my Lazy Boy Chair with my cup of coffee, light a cigarette, open up my fresh New York Times on Google News, and what do I see? A horrifying myth come true. Turns out, like the classic Aesop Children’s Horror says, crows will use jagged rocks to raise water levels in order to do things like drink water at the bottom of the pale, or (more likely, says the latest science) gorily tear apart worms with their sharp beaks, probably just to vomit it back up into the quivering and moist mouths of their young.
Speaking of birds regurgitating, let’s bring this full circle to my previous post on the genetic inferiority of Asians: