This is not the biblical teaching about the body. The hope emphasized in the Bible is for the resurrection of the body. This is why Jesus is resurrected bodily, and not as some kind of ghost. If the body was some kind of superfluous thing like clothes, this would make no sense. This is also why the Nicene Creed says “I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the World to Come.” The World to Come likewise is a renewed version of this world, where Heaven and Earth are united, in the same way that the body and soul are. This idea of the soul shedding the body is Platonic, not Christian.
As for the rapture itself, it is considered to be nonsense by virtually all biblical scholars, both secular and religious, but how it became such a widespread belief among Americans is probably for another website.
The Rapture is more of a pop culture thing than a widespread belief among Americans, but there is one notable exception: Evangelicals. For some reason Evangelicals latch on to some of the weirder parts of Christianity.
You need unbounded recursion. Conditionals alone can’t do that. If you have some kind of conditional go to/jump if expression that’s a different matter.
Xquery is what I would call a “weirdly good” language. It’s weird how good it is and how well designed it is relative to how little adoption it has.
The key thing is that since XML is a first-class datatype in XPath, trees are therefore a first class datatype. Since XPath is built into the language, you don’t need lenses or anything like that to do operations on deep tree structures. It just works. I am tempted sometimes to use it for more general projects than processing XML.
If you have a wide enough definition of AGI having a baby is making “AGI.” It’s a human made, generally intelligent thing. What people mean by the “A” though is we have some kind of inorganic machine realize the traits of “intelligence” in the medium of a computer.
The first leg of the argument would be that we aren’t really sure what general intelligence is or if it’s a natural category. It’s sort of like “betterness.” There’s no general thing called “betterness” that just makes you better at everything. To get better at different tasks usually requires different things.
I would be willing to concede to the AGI crowd that there could be something behind g that we could call intelligence. There’s a deeper problem though that the first one hints at.
For AGI to be possible, whatever trait or traits make up “intelligence” need to have multiple realizablity. They need to be at least realizable in both the medium of a human being and at least some machine architectures. In programmer terms, the traits that make up intelligence could be tightly coupled to the hardware implementation. There are good reasons to think this is likely.
Programmers and engineers like myself love modular systems that are loosely coupled and cleanly abstracted. Biology doesn’t work this way — things at the molecular level can have very specific effects on the macro scale and vice versa. There’s little in the way of clean separation of layers. Who is to say that some of the specific ways we work at a cellular level aren’t critical to being generally intelligent? That’s an “ugly” idea but lots of things in nature are ugly. Is it a coincidence too that humans are well adapted to getting around physically, can live in many different environments, etc.? There’s also stuff from the higher level — does living physically and socially in a community of other creatures play a key role in our intelligence? Given how human beings who grow up absent those factors are developmentally disabled in many ways it would seem so. It could be there’s a combination of factors here, where very specific micro and macro aspects of being a biological human turn out to contribute and you need the perfect storm of these aspects to get a generally intelligent creature. Some of these aspects could be realizable and computers, but others might not be, at least in a computationally tractable way.
It’s certainly ugly and goes against how we like things to work for intelligence to require a big jumbly mess of stuff, but nature is messy. Given the only known case of generally intelligent life is humans, the jury is still out that you can do it any other way.
Another commenter mentioned horses and cars. We could build cars that are faster than horses, but speed is something that is shared by all physical bodies and is therefore eminently multiply realizable. But even here, there are advantages to horses that cars don’t have, and which are tied up with very specific aspects of being a horse. Horses generally can go over a wider range of terrain than cars. This is intrinsically tied to them having long legs and four hooves instead of rubber wheels. They’re only able to have such long legs because of their hooves too because the hooves are required to help them pump blood when they run, and that means that in order for them to pump their blood successfully they NEED to run fast on a regular basis. there’s a deep web of influence both on a part-to-part, and the whole macro-level behaviors of horses. Having this more versatile design also has intrinsic engineering trade-offs. A horse isn’t ever going to be as fast as a gas powered four-wheeled vehicle on flat ground but you definitely can’t build a car that can do everything a horse can do with none of the drawbacks. Even if you built a vehicle that did everything a horse can do, but was faster, I would bet you it would be way more expensive and consume much more energy than a horse. There’s no such thing as a free lunch in engineering. You could also build a perfect replica of a horse at a molecular level and claim you have your artificial general horse.
Similarly, human beings are good at a lot of different things besides just being smart. But maybe you need to be good at seeing, walking, climbing, acquiring sustenance, etc. In order to be generally intelligent in a way that’s actually useful. I also suspect our sense of the beautiful, the artistic is deeply linked with our wider ability to be intelligent.
Finally it’s an open philosophical question whether human consciousness is explainable in material terms at all. If you are a naturalist, you are methodologically committed to this being the case — but that’s not the same thing as having definitive evidence that it is so. That’s an open research project.
I’m not the same guy you were arguing with, but it’s much stranger to have such a weird and focused hatred for a text editor than it is to be a fan of a text editor.
Emacs is not really a text editor. It's rather a Lisp REPL with a built-in text editor. Everything what makes Emacs so great is because of that. That specifically makes it difficult to compare with other editors or IDEs. But sure, some people complain just for the sake of whining - for them, snow is not white enough, salt doesn't taste salty, sugar ain't sweet and Emacs sucks. Yeah, whatever you say, darling.
In my use case, I just use content negotiation/headers to return xml, json, or HTML from the same URI. All of it comes from XSLT or xquery, sometimes Python in other projects. Doing it on the client side doesn’t really seem so necessary as it’s really simple to configure on this behavior on the backend once for all my functions.
The distaste for the OCaml object system is mostly misplaced in the community. While first class modules can mostly replace them — sometimes you really need open recursion. Object types are also a very useful feature used by core libraries.
Tognazzini wrote a magazine column with all the downsides: overly funny, non-academic, etc. I think Tog meant something like selecting commands from a menu vs using a command line across a range of applications. Anyway, studies like that must be somewhere in Proceedings of CHI, I guess. (Just checked bibliography in "Tog on interface", but nothing seemed to match. Found a comparison of different types of menus, but that's different. But also relevant: I guess most people would say using pop-up menu right at the mouse cursor will be faster than a fixed one at the top of the screen, yet the experiment shows the opposite.)
Mousing implies things are visible and you merely point to them. Keyboard implies things are non-visible and you recall commands from memory. These two must have a principal difference. Many animals use tools: inanimate objects lying around that can be employed for some gain. Yet no animal makes a tool. Making a tool is different from using it because to make a tool one must foresee the need for it. And this implies a mental model of the world and the future, i.e. a very big change compared to simply using a suitable object on the spot. (The simplest "making" could be just carrying an object when there is no immediate need for it, e.g. a sufficiently long distance. Looks very simple and I myself do not know if any animals exhibit such behavior, it seems to be on the fence. It would be telling if they don't.)
I think the difference between mousing and keying is about as big as of using a tool and making a tool. Of course, if we use the same app all day long, then its keys become motor movements, but this skill remains confined to the app.
This is not the biblical teaching about the body. The hope emphasized in the Bible is for the resurrection of the body. This is why Jesus is resurrected bodily, and not as some kind of ghost. If the body was some kind of superfluous thing like clothes, this would make no sense. This is also why the Nicene Creed says “I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the World to Come.” The World to Come likewise is a renewed version of this world, where Heaven and Earth are united, in the same way that the body and soul are. This idea of the soul shedding the body is Platonic, not Christian.
As for the rapture itself, it is considered to be nonsense by virtually all biblical scholars, both secular and religious, but how it became such a widespread belief among Americans is probably for another website.
reply