I truly hate media that trivializes serious philosophical positions.
The boombox isn't just as intelligent as the dog, but it may be indistinguishable sound-wise from the dog. If you can make a computer perform an "intelligent" task, then I don't care what's going on underneath. I would still call it intelligent.
And if you can make a robot perform some of the tasks dogs can do (walking around without any foreknowledge of the environment, for one), I'd call it a significant advancement in AI. Those tasks just aren't related to making noises...
>No one reads anything with 100% comprehension, and the assertion that such a thing as perfect understanding exists is absurd. Real meaning of words is fleeting and there certainly isn't any universal truth to every written work.
"meaning of words is fleeting"
Maybe over long periods of time words change their meaning. That doesn't mean you can't fully comprehend SOME writing had you slowed down.
I think a core premise of the parent argument is the existence of '100% comprehension' when reading and believe arguments against this premise are very much not directed towards a strawman.
Sure the meaning of words flows with time, but more importantly our languages are imprecise and subject to much interpretation. How any one person translates the meaning of a word or passage into internal conscious and unconscious understanding is most certainly inconsistent. Ask any hundred academics the meaning of a passage of literature or a poem and you'll get 100 analyses. Ask 100 judges to make a determination of how the law applies to a case and you'll get 100 different judgements (even though the law is supposed to be very precise language by design).
My position is that complete comprehension is absurd therefore all comprehension is incomplete.
Given all comprehension is incomplete, arbitrarily setting limits on levels of comprehension based on tools and reading speed is absurd.
Any comprehension is useful, and doing things quickly is useful therefore a tool that provides some comprehension over meaningfully shorter periods of time for a given block of text has definite utility in some circumstances.
A person can be skeptical of the utility of a tool for their own purposes, but the absolutist opinion of the parent is a silly overstatement of that skepticism.
ya, let's have some software gather data about every single detail of your life. Nobody is going to take advantage of that information, right?
I don't know about you, but the way I understand more about my life is by reflecting and thinking, not by knowing how many steps I climbed or tracks of music I played.
I think it sounds interesting. I signed up as a backer. If I learn one interesting thing it's probably work the $53 USD I've pledged.
I sincerely doubt it will ever replace introspection (not that everyone is as wise as you who understands your life only through that way and no other) as the primary source of my understanding of my own existance.
But I also didn't view it from the lens that it might.
Are you trying to tell me that if a person begins to exercise more, with everything else being constant (calories), that there would be no weight loss?
I'm just asking if anyone has any research that shows exercise helps people lose weight.
Lots of things that seem obvious turn out to be mot true or much weaker than people thought when put through a proper trial.
To answer your specific question: muscle weighs more than fat, so if a person reduces fat percentage but increases muscle percentage will they lose weight or not? They'll be fitter and healthier, but will they be lighter?
No they won't be lighter, but they will still lose weight.
You unfortunately used the phrase in the literal meaning lose weight, while it is commonly used to indicate that someone is going to start reducing their fat percentage and improve the body shape. If the word phrase has a different meaning to you, fine, but whenever it was used in conversations I was involved in it had that definition, thus the confusion. You should have used the word mass and there would be no misunderstanding.
Exercise will definitely work, but it might not strictly lower your mass.
But do you have links to any research to show that people lose weight - that people lower their fat percentage?
Read through this thread. Sometimes people spout utter nonsense about nutrition. While "exercise makes you lose weight" sounds reasonable I'm keen to see what the research says.
So far someone told me that I'm talking shit and a bunch of people downvoted the post that requested research, but no one has provided any links to any research.
This is happening because the message is: nutrition science is a very problematic field, and it's at the opposite of being straightforward and/or evident.
If you want this kind of researches, you will find by yourself lots of researches that support one thesis, then lots of researches supporting the opposite.
I've stopped reading nutrition research, because it's essentially a jumble of conflicting, unfounded theories.
The smartest thing one can do, for this specific question, is this: go to a sports club, then ask to the people: when you stop practicing your sport, do you get fatter? And conversely, when you started, or in periods of intensive training, do you get leaner?
If you're really curious about the subject, do that, you will get the answer.
I've been practicing sports for 20+ years, so I know the answer, and the experience of any person who's been practicing sport intensively for decades, is worth way more than a platoon of armchair academic nutritionits can possibly theorize.
This should remind that research (at least, this type of research) should be grounded and not detached from reality.
This is more fun: we have an extraordinary living specimen that demonstrate the effect in action: Michael Phelps
Unless you can find another way to explain why his 10,000 to 12,000 calorie diet - that included pancakes and sugary energy drinks - didn't result in massive weight gain, as it would in a sedentary person.
Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.
Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.
Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.
As far as I can tell, you're answering a question that nobody asked, one something like, "Does exercise burn calories?" We all know that's true. The question was, "Do you have any research to show that exercise is effective in helping people lose weight?"
As a fat guy who has run 15 or 20 races (including a triathlon) at this point and is training for another, my personal experience is that adding exercise doesn't help me lose weight.
How a person "[processes] on the fly" seems to be a measurement very related to intelligence. So they don't care about IQ, but they do care about mental quickness.
I'm not rich or successful, but gosh dangit, I think I'll do just fine in this world. And it's OK guys, it really is. Remember all those times people said mean things to you just because you were part of the middle class? They're wrong!!!!
There are a lot people on this forum who seem to think they're absolutely right about some convention or way of life and that they're entitled to attention (ie they believe their take is actually insightful). This describes the "I did or think X, and you should also think or do X" threads.
I have found that if a person calls themself an Entrepreneur; they usually have delusions of grandeur--and
hide behind that title. They go through life wondering
why no one wants them around. Kinda pathetic.
It's a shame that such an intelligent group tends towards such arrogance, even in situations where it doesn't help. I think you have a point about the demographic around here being one of the causes of such posts/comments/whatever. However, while the personality traits at fault might have some place in the world of startups--i.e. getting a startup off the ground, against all odds-- it's really too bad that many of us seem to lack to ability to self moderate, even just enough to realize that an arrogant disposition does nothing to further our post about what port we think SSH should run on.
The boombox isn't just as intelligent as the dog, but it may be indistinguishable sound-wise from the dog. If you can make a computer perform an "intelligent" task, then I don't care what's going on underneath. I would still call it intelligent.