Harsh but fair? This comes from a reader helpfully identifying themselves only as 'cyberplasm'.
i was sorry to read your brash juvenile comments on science and hawkins, here is my response:
i was surprised to come across two inanely waffling tracts in your usually regular supply of tech/current affairs.
the first was the examination of divx as a new mp3 and the other was on hawkin's remarks.
the first is basically all right but it is a typical reg explanation of the balance between capitalists, joe consumers and government etc. interests. it's ok but is basically a circumnavigation of the simple facts that the latest of everything media related is all over the place and that all that is needed is a p2p channel, a fat line, and a codec for the file you are downloading. anyone could get full films with these three things. the only barriers would be the copy-scrambling that comes up in dvd in the next few years, which will be useless anyway because it concerns digital copying.
As for the povvy article on hawkins, i am surprised you let any gaga autocratic antithesist self righteous git get anywhere near the editor. any reader would think that this is quite obvious, but i just don't know how many would write in.
basically his short ass para-deducting pap goes like this.. sensationally failed comment by Dr S.H. he is dribbly already from his cripple chair and vocoder. only phdists of the miffed academic circle could eulogise him.(bloody academics )+&*(#" ) "rubishy poo so there" type declaration.
it is possible to write such crap as followed in a moment of overbearing excited folly, but to decide to not put it in a drawer? what's going on here?
T C Green goes on to discuss how his descendants will not see religion and art generated by a synthesised mind, wether the universe and the mind are rational or not, and how academic cowardice elitism bla bla sucks. he also uses a bit of plato to prove his point about hawkins words and does a few learned type peripapathos examinations of how he is right about this interesting question.
i.e. It's taken many centuries for us to work thorough the rubbish and arrive at a cosmology the Greeks wouldn't laugh at. The universe, we're finally beginning to observe, is anything but rational.
any physicist would tell him this sort of logic equivocates to: our universe has a temporal beginning and an end so we should be able to ask does it have temporal centre?
obviously the mind can't understand the mechanics of the universe, the maths of it, the chaos, de dimensional aspects etc, conciousness.
if stephen hawkins has this idea about making humans more ordinally able, it's probably just because a human with extreme maths capacities would be able to help physics greatly, not to replace functional computer. at present the abstracting man is very seperated from the computer-modelled forefront of the sciences, wether it is dna research or cosmology. i don't think he wants people to curtail the march of hubs and switches.
maybe he is mentioning a symbolic idea to do with mathematic rationale and human abstraction in the world. as for taking jabs at the poor man, leave him alone. he is a normal geezer, probably, no more megalomaniacal than your average businessman, reporter or schoolboy. vauron. this bloke is a bit rude about disabled people. nut him someone. and wether hawkind has acheived quite alot in science or written a good book or been eulogised by the media or is a marvel of resilience or what, just stop acting like some conclusive bumpkin whover may be tempted to.
get mr t.c. out of here. typical schoolboy billix. really.
i not very good at unopinionated science, but i would not puport to be speaking sense about how we feel or think of the different takes on science, because i know that the only sort of rationalisation that is worth espousing is the sort that does not seek to rubbish one thory or another but provide further insight.