This is what is edible

Because eating is an activity that people engage in so frequently the degree of thinking neccessary to eat food is greatly underestimated.  The suckling reflex takes care of the infant so that they can eat without thinking at birth.  by the time a baby is capable of eating food other than what it is directly offered, they eat everything.  that is why you have to keep such a close eye on a baby it will eat anything regardless of whether it is poison or even food at all.  But I digress from a digression.  Eating is a very complicated process.  The baby has to learn how to chew, use their tongue to direct food, and swallow.  not to mention that they can not see what is going on the inside of their instructors mouth.  Thus eating requires an abundance of conceptual thinking, although it occurs so routinely that the brain through shifts into rountine mode when undergoing the process.  Its like riding a bike you can never get off of.  Now i can say, I digress.  Can you teach a computer how to eat?  To distinuish between what is edible and poisoness.  absolutely not this process requires thinking and recognition based on generalities.  That is to say that every poisoness plant even in the same species do not look exactly alike so a computer can not differentiate between them.  That being said a computer could very easily be programmed to regurgitate random popular quotes into forums based on the prevalence of key words.  In other words, it takes much more critical thinking to eat than it does to quote another person

Tabula Rosa.  No I think that that notion is as illogical as any absolute.  Not to mention that it is soaked in human superiority doctrine, something I don't think is an accurate description of the biological hierarchy on earth.  This was in response to an argument that began in the notes.  The walking turnip made an argument based on something that I said and this was my response.  It doesn't make much sense standing on its own.  Basically he argued that in order to live a person must think like other people.  I disagree in order for a person to live they must think conceptually even if they don't realize that they are.  

The main point was that if a quote is witty or in some other way appeases to humanity (it is rythmic, creative, ect.) then a person should be extra cautious of examining the argument, because the argument is what matters not the frills.  

Now pertaining to what your argument.  Nature has also endowed us with the ability to hurt ourselves and the ability to experience pain.  Without nature their would be no pain.  Not to say pain is always a bad thing but mother nature is one cold hearted bitch. But if we are going to give creator god like qualities to nature then we must concede that she is working to hard.  Why give us sensory mechanisms to avoid pain, instead of not giving us pain in the first place.  Also the government, who would be the ones hiding AI military development have little more power than giant corporations as far as developing technologies go.  Too much money in robots to keep it secret.  and predicting a persons future thoughts is not that difficult when the thoughts were given to them in the first place and most people don't question or think about what they are told

Not all thoughts are given... how would you have invention? Not to mention who came up with the now, preconceived ideas? Rather, we are taught logic, even if some brains perceive logic in utterly new ways.

As is the case with mathematics. All the math, of all the universe, that could possibly exist, already exists. People just have to discover it. So - given that x+y=z, it no long matters what you want x or y to be. All that matters in today's world, is that if you change one of those two, the final outcome will invariably change. (given that you stay within the same log base)

Now I gave that argument to specify that what you said about nature working too hard is - in my mind - incorrect. Nature evolves everything that physically lives, given a long enough time span. I personally believe nature has seen an earlier flaw in evolution, humans, and is now trying to find a way to balance her own equation by mutating viruses, bacterium, and poisons. Humaninty on the otherhand is seeking to evolve faster, discovering the mathematical (pharmacology is nothing but the mathematical applications of chemistry) applications to out smart said "mother nature." And in the end, one WILL win out. (my own hope is mother nature will win and the human race will die out)

Anyways, diety, creator, or nature - all given time come down to the same thing. A variable that man can not control, and thus given our pension to strive to understand and control all in our enviroments, our biggest fear as a race.

Just a few key responses to ideas brought up previously on the post. I will not be tracking this, so responses will be left for following readers to ponder. Have a great one.

In response to Armand Invention is for the most part combining ideas that aready exist or seeing something slightly different than other people.  All inventions at least rely on communication for spread and practical usage.  that being said the only truely possibly unique invention of humanity is language.  and i am not so sure that language was developed by the species homosapiens.  I get the idea that math is viewed as a capital T truth.  this is simply not true as is shown by Bertrand Russels Paradox and every theoretical physis.  Just because things work on paper does not mean they work in real life.  Also mathematics is a communications system and really nothing more than that.  In short we don't discover mathematics we invent it

In terms of original thinking Mag?  or in terms of what?  10 commandments were not original ideas if that is what you are implying

Or an ethical way to live ones life in my opinion

I can think of nothing worse than heaven so please don't pray for me.  Jesus  loves rebels and the meek so I think he would like me.  I don't like him though, pity is one of the worse vices that a person can have and something he preaches as good behavior, when I don't even think it should be viewed as acceptable behavior.  And i didn't say I don't believe that is much too absolute for my liking, I said that I believe organized religions to be unethical if they follow the golden rule.  Further more judge and you shall be judged.  But what happens when you inaccurately prejudge someone as an unbeliever when they are not.

I just started another forum titled Why religion vs science?  that would be a better place to post that argument Mag