I have a totally non-biased, innocent quiz, and I would never in my life try to lead you, the quiztaker, in any way.

I'm just curious as to whether a certain person is a crackpot (we'll call him "person X").

------------------------------------------------------------------

Person X claims that yeast cells are conscious because they exhibit complex behavior, and yet person X denies that Deep Blue also has consciousness despite this entity exhibiting complex behavior as well.

Person X claims to have made a great discovery in biology without setting foot in a laboratory or doing any field work.

Person X also argues that "real" skepticism supports Mormonism.

----

I'm just curious.

I'm not trying to trick you into agreeing with me or anything like that.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 08:57PM by archytas.

I say your friend is incorrect on issues 1 & 3. On 1b, the issue of AI, I'm too ignorant to have an opinion. Especially in light of the hatred a car I owned had for me. All my other cars liked me...

But without knowing what his great discovery in biology is, how can I say that it could not have been made without ever being in a lab?

As a youth, I had what I thought were great discoveries about sex, although I had never been in a vagina. So I have to cut him some slack on that one. (And yeah, some of my sex theories, arising as the did with zero lab work with a partner, turned out to be on the mark.)

Person X is a crackpot. The word is so funny, it's just got to apply to him.

> Person X claims that yeast cells are conscious
> because they exhibit complex behavior, and yet
> person X denies that Deep Blue also has
> consciousness despite this entity exhibiting
> complex behavior as well.

There's no way either yeast or Deep Blue is conscious. I'm the only consciousness in the universe. All of you and your yeast are just faking it.


> Person X claims to have made a great discovery in
> biology without setting foot in a laboratory or
> doing any field work.

With a loose definition of discovery, I suppose a serendipitous insight is possible without labs or field work. With a stricter definition, it's impossible.


> Person X also argues that "real" skepticism
> supports Mormonism.

Does Person X begin with skepticism of Mormonism, or begin with the assumption that Mormonism is completely factual?


Yes, crackpot.

I can't wrap my head any of it...
Now it's degenerated into mocking level, rightly so.

being conscious and being sentient are two completely different things. ivy has been shown to be sentient: burn a leaf and other parts of the plant will respond, I do not believe yeast to behave in this way.

how do we know a yeast 'thinks, therefore it is'? we cannot. I do not believe an individual yeast cell is self-aware. It may be aware it is part of something (sentient) that shares information, but it is not self aware and capable of making plans for the future, like a dog for instance: I have bone and am not hungry, I will bury bone to eat later when I am hungry.

I do not believe AI is or ever will be self aware all by itself, it is simply programmed that way.

Person X is a crackpot - how can he properly study all types of yeast without using a laboratory?

I do find the demonstration of the connection between yeast infections and Mormonism to be quite valid, so I would say Person X is a genius. Genius are often crackpots. I have personal knowledge of this.

Deliciously accurate.
Though rather than "crackpot," I'd go with "confused and irrational." :)

Or alternatively - nucking futs

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> I'm not trying to trick you into agreeing with me
> or anything like that.

Of course you are not. Nobody would create a quiz using a hypothetical "X" with questions based on bad assumptions, half truths or lies. Nobody would structure such questions in a way as to get people to agree to a fallacious predetermined conclusion. So you, or anyone that would use a hypothetical "X" could possibly be trying to trick us into agreeing with you, or them.

Dang, that much sarcasm hurts.

Ya, I suppose I could present my argument in a straightforward manner, but then I might have to respond to counterarguments and engage in discussion like an adult.

It's so much easier to trick people with a manipulative quiz..errr...I mean...an objective survey.

Person X is using yeast to get a rise out of others. Which isn't very complex behavior at all.

The fresher the yeast the better the rise, can OP confirm whether X is fresh?

Person X sounds like they have a midlife crisis.

BTW, the yeast cells in the Rochefort 8 I'm currently drinking make for a pretty complex beer so I'm keeping an open mind on that one.

I think the yeast I typically encounter is intelligent and smart. Somehow it knows to turn all that sugar into alcohol in my home brews.

First of all, there is a-l-w-a-y-s a bias!

http://www.amazon.com/Blindspot-Hidden-Biases-Good-People/dp/0553804642

Second...well, I never got past the first.