Humans Are Doomed to Go Extinct

[matt72582]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-doomed-to-go-extinct/

[Citizen Rules]

Of course humans will go extinct, nothing last forever. Even the greatest of all species to 'rule' the planet is now extinct...and once they dominated their world.

[Chypmunk]

Roaches ftw!

[Corax]

All species go extinct. They either wind up a dead end or morph into something else. Even roaches and sharks and bacteria will have to face our home sun becoming a red giant and cooking the planet.



The human species is unique because we are the first species to actively work on developing our replacement species (i.e., AI). Humans are interesting, not because we're really unique or special, but because we're just clever enough to engineer that which will come next. This is not an escape from evolution, but an acceleration of it. We will be most notable as the dividing line in strata of life between organic and purely engineered life.



Life from Earth will probably spread to the stars, but probably not human life.

[matt72582]

Roaches ftw!


And they've remained the same since the beginning.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDg721WdilM

[Chypmunk]

Someone on here once told me that either polecats or 'thumb-people' may benefit most from the demise of the human race. Wish I could remember who it was said that as I'd 'ping' them about this thread.

edit: On reflection I'm pretty sure that was actually from a convo on a different forum.

[doubledenim]

I don’t have enough plastic in my life.

[John McClane]

Tardigrades be having a laugh

[Sedai]

"In some countries, the population will soon be half the current value. People are now becoming worried about underpopulation."

Remember the good ol' days, when overpopulation was sure to kill us all?

Good times!

[John Dumbear]

When?

[Captain Steel]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-doomed-to-go-extinct/

This is why I'm building a robot body to carry on after me.
And I'll demand my niece Barbara - that peanut-headed sample of nature's carelessness - make me hot chocolate... served in the English, bone china cup... and if it's not hot enough, I'll throw it on the floor!

[matt72582]

This is why I'm building a robot body to carry on after me.
And I'll demand my niece Barbara - that peanut-headed sample of nature's carelessness - make me hot chocolate... served in the English, bone china cup... and if it's not hot enough, I'll throw it on the floor!


Have you thought this out? :)

[beelzebubble]

All species go extinct. They either wind up a dead end or morph into something else. Even roaches and sharks and bacteria will have to face our home sun becoming a red giant and cooking the planet.



The human species is unique because we are the first species to actively work on developing our replacement species (i.e., AI). Humans are interesting, not because we're really unique or special, but because we're just clever enough to engineer that which will come next. This is not an escape from evolution, but an acceleration of it. We will be most notable as the dividing line in strata of life between organic and purely engineered life.



Life from Earth will probably spread to the stars, but probably not human life.
At first I found this to be a jolly little post. Probably due to the fact that only AI is going to make it to the stars and my prediliction for sci fi.
As for us, I think we will be lucky if we go back to living in small tribes again. Then we can sit around the fire discussing Og's latest find out in the wild. I think this is a pretty optimistic view though.

[Sedai]

Doom-scrollers, the lot of you! ;)

[Corax]

At first I found this to be a jolly little post. Probably due to the fact that only AI is going to make it to the stars and my prediliction for sci fi.
As for us, I think we will be lucky if we go back to living in small tribes again. Then we can sit around the fire discussing Og's latest find out in the wild. I think this is a pretty optimistic view though.


We will only continue to exist if our "children" decide to keep us around. Humans will still be a threat it in one significant sense; we can create more machines. If the AI keeps us around it will probably be with supervision and a great commandment: Thou Shalt Not Create Machines in My Image.

[Swan]

I am already extant.

Oops, wrong word.

[Yoda]

Maybe, but humans are unlike anything else currently observable in nature, so I think any conclusion that fails to address that in some way is insufficient.

[chongjasmine]

I don't believe human beings will ever be extinct. We are always coming up with technology. With new technology, any problem can be solved. Besides, as a Christian, I have faith that God will never let human beings become extinct. We may fail God, but God will not fail us.

[TheDoctor]

I always asked myself, why among all other species here, did humans not have their "safety-switch" given by mother nature, to make sure they will not evolve above the rest of those other lifeforms here, so they finally turn against mother nature including all other lifeforms here.

At the end it absolutely doesn´t matter, this whole universe will collapse sooner or later.

[Stirchley]

I don't believe human beings will ever be extinct. We are always coming up with technology. With new technology, any problem can be solved. Besides, as a Christian, I have faith that God will never let human beings become extinct. We may fail God, but God will not fail us.

So who do you worship more: God or technology?

[TheDoctor]

God will not fail us.

I think he is a narcissistic a-hole, just like i am, but i am no god.

Would i be god, i already would have wiped out mankind from the surface of this planet to make room for a better species, hopefully not as dumb as this current one.

[John Dumbear]

When?

No one answered me, dammit !

[Citizen Rules]

No one answered me, dammit !What was the question?:D I'll try to answer, but more likely I'll just give my own opinion:cool:

[Mesmerized]

What was the question?:D

I was wondering the same thing.

[SpelingError]

Bill in It's Such a Beautiful Day says hi.

[Taz]

People are surprised to learn this? Dinosaurs were a relatively clean living species that existed for millions upon millions of years and yet they went extinct. Humans, as we currently are, have populated the earth for less than 3 seconds or something on the world clock, and yet look at the mess that has already been made and there is no sign of that actually altering any time soon. Either extinction or evolution will alter the species. It's inevitible.

[John Dumbear]

I blame daylight savings time...

[FromBeyond]

Hi I I haven’t posted a long but the person I love 💕most in the world die. I stop watching a movie ever aga go in.

Am tripping But somethings happening in my bedroom, yes I’m on drugs but I am watching the in n

A girl had t shirt today and it said everything is great written on it and all of a sudden I can hear
The Lego movie.
(My phones screen was curving around then I swears it was crazy and around my phone it’s not my room , I m flhing though some celestial plain gee wis my keypad … it was going translucent And introverted.

I thought funny if I start running up to random strangers and start singing everything is awesome.
(I am see in in black and white now and my bedroom is somewhere there’s trees

Hold on…



I’m actually in a forest in my bedroom

I was on top of a cathedral for a momoment, it was scary I was too high

Don’t feel afraid in a strange city yell Into the phone the coral is being destroyed.

Maybe we can start a movement right now and we must renounce tecghnohogy and everything life has given us and just take back each little part and say is no a ours

[matt72582]

Hi I I haven’t posted a long but the person I love 💕most in the world die. I stop watching a movie ever aga go in.

Am tripping But somethings happening in my bedroom, yes I’m on drugs but I am watching the in n

A girl had t shirt today and it said everything is great written on it and all of a sudden I can hear
The Lego movie.
(My phones screen was curving around then I swears it was crazy and around my phone it’s not my room , I m flhing though some celestial plain gee wis my keypad … it was going translucent And introverted.

I thought funny if I start running up to random strangers and start singing everything is awesome.
(I am see in in black and white now and my bedroom is somewhere there’s trees

Hold on…



I’m actually in a forest in my bedroom

I was on top of a cathedral for a momoment, it was scary I was too high

Don’t feel afraid in a strange city yell Into the phone the coral is being destroyed.

Maybe we can start a movement right now and we must renounce tecghnohogy and everything life has given us and just take back each little part and say is no a ours




LSD?

[FromBeyond]

Edit : sorry not mad know prob not real but tucking things not ending. My room (or rather half my room) is no like hurtling through difference places but there I can only describe thin red trees everywhere in garden or even perhaps a never ending tapestry or red patterns.. I sat myself down, breathed, turned light off bedroom look out agsin sure everything will be ****ing back to normal, I look out it normal then in my vision top right I can only describe a weird looking red drone hoovering over and above then going up into like this tapestry, I stopped looking

[FromBeyond]

Almost everything but LSD

[TheDoctor]

People are surprised to learn this?

No, everyone is just trying to fight his boredom by posting irrelevant crap on forums no one really cares about at all.

[Corax]

I always asked myself, why among all other species here, did humans not have their "safety-switch" given by mother nature, to make sure they will not evolve above the rest of those other lifeforms here, so they finally turn against mother nature including all other lifeforms here.

Evolution is blind and purposeless. It's a tournament of winners and anything goes. Evolution isn't even stupid. It doesn't have a brain, plans, or intentions. Whenever scientists talk about "evolved for 'X'", that's just them speaking idiomatically.



If evolution did have a purpose, I would think that the point would be to eventually get to a species just like us. Clever, unstable, unsustainable, but a springboard to life directly engineering, refining and accelerating evolutionary processes. There is this very unstable and risky moment when a plane makes a phase transition from being a ground vehicle to an airborne vehicle, but it's a necessary moment (i.e., take-off). That's us, I think. We're a sort of booster rocket, doomed to fall back to Earth in a smoldering heap, but which may launch into orbit an entirely new trajectory for the evolutionary project.

[TheDoctor]

Evolution is blind and purposeless.

So is this whole universe, including every kind of lifeform, regardless if it´s a species being super-intelligent or dumb as bread.


It's a tournament of winners and anything goes..

There can´t be anything like a "tournament", when everything is purposeless coz even a "tournament" wouldn´t serve any purpose after all, meaning those "winners" and "losers" are as well without any purpose.


Evolution isn't even stupid. It doesn't have a brain, plans, or intentions. Whenever scientists talk about "evolved for 'X'", that's just them speaking idiomatically.

It´s wrong to think that as soon someone is a "scientist", it automatically means there is a "very smart" person talking and as a matter of fact has to be right with everything!

There are as well as "brainless dorks" among scientists as well there are within the average humans of non-scientists....except...well...those "brainless dorks" of scientists are still a lot smarter than the "brainless dorks" of regular non-scientists.

But my point is, scientists as well tend to talk much nonsense when the day is long and i am the best example for that:

I am no scientist, but i am a super-hyper-ultra-intelligent entity, yet i love to talk stupid nonsense at times!


If evolution did have a purpose, I would think that the point would be to eventually get to a species just like us.

But that would assume the exact opposite of what you just said. If evolution "targeted" to get to a species like us, that means it would have had a plan to begin with!


Clever

WTF? We are still talking about the human species are we???


We're a sort of booster rocket, doomed to fall back to Earth

Maybe THIS ("doomed" to...) was the natural safety switch we got planted from mother nature.

[Corax]

There can´t be anything like a "tournament", when everything is purposeless coz even a "tournament" wouldn´t serve any purpose after all, meaning those "winners" and "losers" are as well without any purpose.

Very good! That is an arch observation. The word "tournament" is a metaphor only and speaks to purpose only idiomatically. I was trying to avoid the old phrase, survival of the fittest, but feel free to read that statement as saying precisely that.

It´s wrong to think that as soon someone is a "scientist", it automatically means there is a "very smart" person talking and as a matter of fact has to be right with everything!

Perhaps, but when evolutionary scientists speak of "design" in nature, they still only do so idiomatically (unless they actually are idiots or confused, and some scientists certainly are, they're only human). The point is not that they're always right, but that when they speak rightly (which here only refers to their pre-commitments to naturalism and materialism) when speaking of nature, they do so from the view of a purposeless and meaningless universe which just "happened to happen" the way it did.

But that would assume the exact opposite of what you just said. If evolution "targeted" to get to a species like us, that means it would have had a plan to begin with!

Please note the operative word "if." It does not, but if it did, I would conjecture thus.

[AgrippinaX]

matt72582, I guess I’m honestly (non-sarcastically) wondering what you were getting at when you started this thread (given there’s no commentary on the article).

[matt72582]

@matt72582 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=85325), I guess I’m honestly (non-sarcastically) wondering what you were getting at when you started this thread (given there’s no commentary on the article).


It's been over a year, and I haven't read the article in over a year, but I do like to compare time periods. Before my birth, during my lifetime, and see how things have changed, always looking for inaccuracies. Yeah, eventually the species die out, but it's incredible how things 'suddenly' change. The conversations online - whatever is trending now online is interesting. It's obviously not organic, but trying to understand the influence is the task.



It's a long time away, but before that happens, people should diagnose problems they've seen arise in just their lifetime. Artificial intelligence has changed the economy, culture, even socialization.

[TheDoctor]

Perhaps, but when evolutionary scientists speak of "design" in nature

Are we talking "Intelligent Design" here? If yes, then i don´t think any halfway-real and/or half-way serious "scientist" would take "Intelligent Design" for real, since it´s usually those Jesus- and Church-People who hope to see some "Intelligent Design" in nature to claim:

"WOOOOW!!!!! OH MYYYY!!!!!! IT WAS GOD WHO MADE IT ALL!!! YUPEEEEE!!!!! SUPIEE!!!! DOOODELDEEEE DUMMMM!!!!!!"

[Corax]

Are we talking "Intelligent Design" here?

Not my half of the "we," no. A typical evolutionary scientist is only speaking metaphorically about "purpose" and "design" in nature. It is very very hard to speak of things like "function," "advantage," and "competitiveness," without speaking of nature as if nature did have purposes, intentions, and goals.



The same thing happens in other sciences, such as when chemists speak of various molecules/atoms that "want to share" electrons and so on. They don't mean that atomic structures really desire to do anything, it's just a way of saying that they're reactive.

[TheDoctor]

A typical evolutionary scientist is only speaking metaphorically about "purpose" and "design" in nature.

Scientists are too dumb to speak simple facts and besides that, are unable to call things by their real names?

About what kind of "scientists" are we even talking here?


It is very very hard to speak of things like "function," "advantage," and "competitiveness," without speaking of nature as if nature did have purposes, intentions, and goals.


No, it´s not hard. It´s as well not as hard as my question was to answer with a simple "Yes!" or "No!" and the fact that simple Yes-Or-No-Questions are to answer as simple as that.

Of course it all depends on ones grade of intelligence and you seem to talk about scientists as if their I.Q. would be somewhere below 70 :p

[Corax]

Scientists are too dumb to speak simple facts and besides that, are unable to call things by their real names?

Human language is primarily designed for human purposes. It is dripping with the intentionality of folk-psychology. That doesn't change when we switch to science. Again, it is very difficult to speak of things like advantage, competitiveness, and function without making use of the folk-psychology of intention. Speaking idiomatically of nature as "she" and speaking of "her" purposes and aims, is just a convenient means of expression. They're not stupid. Smart people use metaphors and other non-literal expressions quite regularly.

About what kind of "scientists" are we even talking here?
People with PhDs who actually have the title "doctor" appended to the front of their names?

No, it´s not hard.

Turns out, that it actually is easier to use the intentional folk-psychology of ordinary language idiomatically than it is to speak like one is severely Autistic in purposefully (see how the language of intention is everywhere?) avoiding all non-literal references.

It´s as well not as hard as my question was to answer with a simple "Yes!" or "No!" and the fact that simple Yes-Or-No-Questions are to answer as simple as that.

It was a rather odd question. One might say, "obtuse." I said that I was speaking of evolutionary scientists, and then you asked if I was asking about scientists (as of the "scientist" part of evolutionary scientists didn't already answer the question). Thus, I attempted to offer a good-faith explanation. That's all.

Of course it all depends on ones grade of intelligence and you seem to talk about scientists as if their I.Q. would be somewhere below 70 :p
If you associate I.Q. scores with a rigidly officious literalness, then I suppose you might have a point here.

[TheDoctor]

Again, it is very difficult to speak of things like advantage, competitiveness, and function without making use of the folk-psychology of intention.

Again, it is not.

When scientists write their articles, they exactly know how to deal with words and "Schrödinger´s Cat" is a good example.

So if a scientist doesn´t know how to cope with the right words, he´s probably writing his articles in his second language (like me being Austrian, writing in english here) or has a general problem with language after all.

Now the latter doesn´t mean he would be "less smart" than people who can cope with words easier or having a bigger stash of words in their vocabulary.


Human language is primarily designed for human purposes.

WTF?

Should it have been designed for interactions with aliens?


They're not stupid.

"Stupid" is actually just relative and i could carry on with dozens of examples for that, stretching out this more or less practically use- and pointless (but funny and amusing!) discussion even longer.


Smart people use metaphors and other non-literal expressions quite regularly.

In order to use metaphors and non-literal expressions, it needs a certain grade of education, but the grade of one´s education doesn´t say something about one´s grade of intelligence, so this means there can be "smart" people, actually being smarter than someone having a bigger stash of metaphors and non-literal expressions within their daily vocabulary.


People with PhDs who actually have the title "doctor" appended to the front of their names?

Is there a particularly reason for you to pick "Doctor" as the subject now? :)

A intelligent being would for sure know the difference between a serious, intelligent "Doctor" and a "Doctor" who is just making fun or just pretending to be a doctor while actually being a brainless dork after all.


Turns out, that it actually is easier to use the intentional folk-psychology of ordinary language idiomatically than it is to speak like one is severely Autistic in purposefully (see how the language of intention is everywhere?) avoiding all non-literal references..

In my opinion, you seem to be way too focused on languages here now, rather than science itself.


It was a rather odd question.

Was it a "odd" question or did it only appear as "odd" to you? You know, that thing with objectivity and subjectivity.


I said that I was speaking of evolutionary scientists, and then you asked if I was asking about scientists (as of the "scientist" part of evolutionary scientists didn't already answer the question). Thus, I attempted to offer a good-faith explanation. That's all.

You used the word "design" along with scientists and i said that "real" scientists hardly believe in something like "intelligent design". I still wonder why you came up with that word "design" to begin with, when you could have as well used the full word "Intelligent Design".

So, where you talking about "Intelligent Design" when you used the single word "Design"?


If you associate I.Q. scores with a rigidly officious literalness, then I suppose you might have a point here.

I.Q. scores! Let´s talk how "intelligence" can/could be spotted!

Can one´s I.Q. be determined via those 10-minutes I.Q.-Online Tests where you have to pay 5 dollars in order to get a "certificate" showing how high it actually is?

On a serious note, i never understood how I.Q. tests with given time-limits are really saying something about one´s I.Q. after all, since i am not really sure how speed does say something about the level of I.Q.

Me for example, i tend to have serious troubles focusing as soon i am under mental stress (time limits!) but i hardly believe that this fact is making a person "dumber" or "less intelligent", yet those people can have lower scores with those tests having time limits.

[Corax]

Again, it is not.

To speak of "purpose" in a "purposeless" universe, to speak of "function" in an organism which was not "designed" by anyone to do anything, to speak of "selection" by nature (which selects for nothing at all), these are all paradoxical tasks. Dawkins would title his book "The Blind Watchmaker," which is a nice metaphor, but one which contains a designer with a purpose (i.e., a person who makes watches).

Here is a nice quotation from a wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology) that discusses the problem in detail.

With evolution working by natural selection acting on inherited variation, the use of teleology in biology has attracted criticism, and attempts have been made to teach students to avoid teleological language.

Nevertheless, biologists still often write about evolution as if organisms had goals, and some philosophers of biology such as Francisco Ayala and biologists such as J. B. S. Haldane consider that teleological language is unavoidable in evolutionary biology.
...

William C. Wimsatt affirmed that the teleologicality of the language of biology and other fields derives from the logical structure of their background theories, and not merely from the use of teleological locutions such as "function" and "in order to". He stated that "To replace talk about function by talk about selection [...] is not to eliminate teleology but to rephrase it". However, Wimsatt argues that this thought does not mean an appeal to backwards causation, vitalism, entelechy, or anti-reductionist sentiments.

The biologist J. B. S. Haldane observed that "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."If this were so simple thing, we would not have scientists, philosophers, and linguists discussing this as a "real deal" problem in the language of biology.

For your part, your counter-analysis has basically been "nuh-uh!" which really isn't saying much.

When scientists write their articles, they exactly know how to deal with words and "Schrödinger´s Cat" is a good example.

How so?

So if a scientist doesn´t know how to cope with the right words, he´s probably writing his articles in his second language (like me being Austrian, writing in english here) or has a general problem with language after all.

The scientists are doing just fine. Scientists use idiomatic expressions quite frequently as it adds an economy of expression, the bright flash of an apt metaphor, and simplicity which is often required for the scientist communicating with the wider public.

WTF?

Should it have been designed for interactions with aliens?

No, it should not have. And the price of human language is that it is dripping with intentionality. As much as the scientist attempts to achieve pure objectivity and enter into a pure scientific vocabulary, the scientist is still human and ordinary language comes seeping in quite quickly, resulting in idiomatic expressions of purpose (even when none are literally intended).

In order to use metaphors and non-literal expressions, it needs a certain grade of education,

No, not at all. Metaphor is the province of all language users. We're not "Draxes." Nothing is more common or useful than the metaphorical associations of everyday language users. You don't need any education to make use of tropological language.

but the grade of one´s education doesn´t say something about one´s grade of intelligence, so this means there can be "smart" people, actually being smarter than someone having a bigger stash of metaphors and non-literal expressions within their daily vocabulary.

Cool story, bro. Everyone engages in non-literality, including scientists.

A intelligent being would for sure know the difference between a serious, intelligent "Doctor" and a "Doctor" who is just making fun or just pretending to be a doctor while actually being a brainless dork after all.

It's just a prank, doc!

In my opinion, you seem to be way too focused on languages here now, rather than science itself.

Scientists, perforce, express themselves in language, so it fits (e.g., there is a reason why the Wiki entry makes reference to William Wimsatt).

Was it a "odd" question or did it only appear as "odd" to you? You know, that thing with objectivity and subjectivity.

Our salvation is that of intersubjectivity--the question would strike a good many people fluent in what we're discussing as odd.

You used the word "design" along with scientists and i said that "real" scientists hardly believe in something like "intelligent design". I still wonder why you came up with that word "design" to begin with, when you could have as well used the full word "Intelligent Design".
It's so odd that you think you've caught me out here. "Intelligent Design" is NOT the same thing as "Design" (as in "genetic architecture," "function," "advantageous feature," etc.). This is especially so, when I explicitly noted that evolutionary scientists are not being thuddingly literal when they use such expressions. You're a bit like the person who would kill an actual cat in the attempt to offer an empirical "test" of Schrödinger´s Cat thought-experiment.

Yes, I used the word. I stated the special sense in which I was using the word.

So, where you talking about "Intelligent Design" when you used the single word "Design"?

How many different ways are there for me to say "no"?

[TheDoctor]

It's so odd that you think you've caught me out here.

How come you think that i would have "caught" you here to begin with?

Now THAT is odd!

Is this one of those online-discussions where it´s about nothing else but who is getting "caught" here?

If it comes to this "discussion", then you did it again right away:

(i allowed myself to edit/erase the rest of your text, just to show the actual obvious)

....metaphor.....language.....idiomatic expressions.....economy of expression....an apt metaphor.....scientific vocabulary.....idiomatic expressions......Metaphor .....the province of all language.......metaphorical associations......everyday language......language.....expressions....

You were talking about language since two pages now, rather than talking about scientists, science or at least physics in some way.


You're a bit like the person who would kill an actual cat

If you would have spent the last two pages with talking about actual science rather than language (again!), you would have realized that the cat ain´t dead at all.

It is in fact both dead and alive! (...until you go check its state! :D ) And yes, i am aware, it´s just another one of your hilarious "pranks" again. :D

[Corax]

How come you think that i would have "caught" you here to begin with?

Because you keep associating me with the intelligent design movement and asking me whether I'm an ID'er.

Is this one of those online-discussions where it´s about nothing else but who is getting "caught" here?

It appears that way. But this isn't exactly a scandal (i.e., this is what the game of dialectic does).

(i allowed myself to edit/erase the rest of your text, just to show the actual obvious)

Science is not walled off from other areas. Scientists engage in measurement, so they must use mathematics. Scientists have to make foundational assumptions about reality as a starting point, so they must make use of philosophy. Scientists must communicate, so they must use language. And language is dripping with intention. Ordinary language precedes and seeps into the technical language of specialists.

You were talking about language since two pages now, rather than talking about scientists, science or at least physics in some way.

Why would I be talking about physics when our issue is that of biology? Physics doesn't have the problem of teleology. Biology does. This is another reason that idiomatic expression (of purpose) is so very difficult to avoid.

Moreover, we're talking about the language of science, so this fits. We're not talking here about what science does, but how science talks about itself--that's a language issue, dude. It's baffling that you seem to think that science is hermetically sealed off from language problems. This is simply wrong. The biologist's pursuit of taxonomy, for example, is a classic language problem. What shall we call these things? How shall we group these things? You, however, seem to think that science is some pure rarified realm that stands apart from everything else--holy science, so pure that it need not even sully itself with language!

If you would have spent the last two pages with talking about actual science rather than language (again!), you would have realized that the cat ain´t dead at all.

Language is an essential part of "actual science." Until the someone perfects telepathy, language will be at the center of "science communication" (both professional and popular).

That cat is neither alive nor dead, because it's not an actual cat. It is a linguistic cat that is part of a purely linguistic construction (a "thought experiment") which was offered as a criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

[TheDoctor]

Because you keep associating me with the intelligent design movement and asking me whether I'm an ID'er.

No. You are talking about language the whole time.


...dialectic...

Yup, it´s all about language!


....language. And language is dripping with intention. Ordinary language....technical language....

Yes, language.


Why would I be talking about physics when our issue is that of biology?

You have a language-issue.


...idiomatic expression...

Language?


Moreover, we're talking about the language of science

You´re talking about language, yes.


...language!

Yes, language! Go tell em dude!


Language...

Yup.



That cat is neither alive nor dead, because it's not an actual cat.

Quantum Physics explained by a linguist!

[Corax]

No. You are talking about language the whole time.

You are also talking about language.



You objected to my language use (i.e., the word "tournament").



I noted that such usage was merely idiomatic. An inconvenience, but that evolutionary scientists use such expressions without committing to the view of a purpose-driven universe.



You then insisted that competent scientists would be able to use precise language to avoid these problems.



You appear to think that my language implicates me as Intelligent Design advocate (although this would also implicate Darwin, Dawkins and a whole host evolutionists as such for also using such expressions). If so, language is serious business indeed.



You have offered no proof for your stance. You've blurted and asserted and gested and evaded, but you have offered no arguments.



The only (unelaborated) example you've offered is that of Schrodinger's Cat, but I have shown that that example is a thought experiment. That is, the cat is a non-literal counterfactual reductio of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which mocks Bohr/Heisenberg with an alive/dead cat. It is an experiment made of language only.



We're getting into Monty Python Black Knight territory, so I'll just leave you here to bleed awhile.

[TheDoctor]

You are also talking about language.

No.

I am saying that you are talking about language the whole time and you are repeating yourself over and over again like a broken record.


You objected to my language use (i.e., the word "tournament")..

Oh! Damn!


I noted.

Does this happen often?


merely idiomatic.

There! You weren´t repeating yourself at all this time and used "merely" before "idiomatic".

Nice to see you´re making progress!


You then insisted

Have you been watching too many Tarantino-Movies?


my language implicates me as Intelligent

No. Absolutely not.


You have offered no proof for your stance. You've blurted and asserted and gested and evaded, but you have offered no arguments.

That´s totally ok with me since i don´t need to prove anything to you and especially since you anyway live inside your own secure language-bubble-universe.


The only (unelaborated) example you've offered is that of Schrodinger's Cat,

...which you do not understand.


but I have shown that that example is a thought experiment.

Schrödinger´s Cat is a thought experiment, regardless of what you think you have shown.


That is, the cat is a non-literal counterfactual reductio of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which mocks Bohr/Heisenberg with an alive/dead cat. It is an experiment made of language only.

Calm down, everything is fine!


We're getting into Monty Python Black Knight territory,.

What´s wrong with that? I thought this whole conversation is as funny and hilariously amusing to you as it is to me?


so I'll just leave you here to bleed awhile.

Oh, looks like you were taking it a little way too serious and now you´re losing it.