This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

knightcap's Profile

knightcap's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by knightcap

More Discussions by knightcap

Latest Comments by knightcap

Go to: AC Grayling Interview

knightcap's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by knightcap

Richard Dawkins said:

I wonder why Part 2, but not Part 1, has subtitles

I did the subtitles for video 2 hoping that it would help some listeners understand what was being said, and that the video would be indexed better in YouTube. I will get around to doing video 1.

ridelo said:
What a nice gesture for non-native speakers! Would that it was done more of the time.
And why not on part I?

Thanks. Well first time I tried uploading part 1, it failed (this often happens to me, perhaps my ISP is throttling YouTube). So while I was waiting I did the subtitles for part 2.

The auto subtitle feature is better than it used to be, but often the subtitles that are auto-generated are misleading, so I have to _manually adjust_ the subtitles, which takes a great sum of time. My efforts are not entirely accurate, but I am happy to adjust if people want to korrect me.

scottishgeologist said:
BTW, an interesting choice of interviewer from the "Centre for Public Christianity"

I spoke to Greg Clarke after drinking too much beer, at Federation Square after night 2 of the Atheist Convention. He was giving a talk there on Christianity. Interviewed him, and 2 other Christians. Greg seemed quite progressive for a christian. I am an armature, my camera is bad, no directional mic, and I blame it on beer also hehe, so the end result was not all that good. (And they are not on YouTube yet).

...'fervendi', am not sure what it means, or whether I spelt it correctly.

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:45:00 UTC | #454661

Go to: AC Grayling and Russell Blackford discuss Atheism

knightcap's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by knightcap

I think it is interesting what they say about the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I keep hearing that question coming up everywhere. Almost every talk related to atheism I go to someone asks that very question which gets annoying, but the speakers handled it well.

Also interesting is the idea of god coming from an animistic idea of intentionality in nature, but in time was gradually pushed out further away, on top of mountains, sky gods etc, ultimately turning into something 'outside space and time' or supernatural which is the way a lot of theologians describe god today (a metaphysical god).
Why is god (now days at least) described as something that exists 'outside the realm of science' or in a place that science can or will not ever be able to reach? Is it that there is evidence to support this? or lack of evidence for god existing within the realm of science? Anyone know what is the basis for this presumption?
Gaps in science have been used to argue for god's existence. What is often classified as proof of gods existence is just a pointer to mystery, not anything measurable or specific. Metaphysics [in use as : A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment] cannot be described, and the assumption that metaphysical 'realms' exist (and also assuming a certain nature of metaphysics that allows a god) is just based on re-bottled and re-labeled faith.
If god existed or did exist within 'the realm of science', one would think that there would be forms of measurable evidence to suggest this - we have not found any yet. If god is a personal christian god who intervened in the dealings of men here on earth in recent history, it is hard to justify why there is no measurable evidence discovered at all (which has stood up to honest scientific analysis). Until has been, one cannot assume with good reason that there is a personal god.

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:24:00 UTC | #450975

Go to: Richard Dawkins Interviewed on SBS Dateline

knightcap's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by knightcap

Thats the stuff...good on you Dawkins, and Negus did a good interview - yes I agree that it was good to see 'Evolutionary Biologist' as a sub instead of just 'Atheist'.
Will be seeing Dawkins in Melbourne this weekend!!!

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:05:00 UTC | #447407

Go to: Russell Blackford interview on YouTube

knightcap's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by knightcap

The real issue is not Kurzweil, its the idea of Strong AI and a Technological Singularity. I challenge that if the ideas are feasible, then they should be discussed.

Seems like some fall into the trap of relying on famous names, it turns into a 'personality cult' if taken too far.

I admire Hofstadter, brilliant man, and great writer. Though I think he sees the mind as sacred, and if AI were to emulate it, he would loose dignity.
He is also annoyed at software writing music: http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/

PZ Myers: I have seen his writing on the subject, i have not heard him say anything rational about the idea of a technological singularity, just seems to attack one person who has written about it...please alert me if he has found a knock down argument against Strong AI or the Singularity.

Have not really read what Bruce Sterling has to say. Perhaps someone can outline his arguments against the possibility of Strong AI?

The Pope 'might be' smarter than you, GWB might be also, does that mean you should agree with everything they say?
People who are 'most probably' smarter than you think that it is possible, including Dan Dennit, he just does not think it is 'near' : "Well, I think that the idea of the singularity is, it’s possible and principle of course but I think that the idea that it’s in the near future is just not possible."

Point is, forget hero worship, people should do some proper research for themselves, and make their own rational decision.

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:45:00 UTC | #444057

Go to: Russell Blackford interview on YouTube

knightcap's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by knightcap

The music at the beginning and end of each video is the start of Fryderyk Chopin's 'Nocturne No.20 - Op.P1 No.16 - in C#m'

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:32:00 UTC | #441987

More Comments by knightcap