The steam engine was invented and the 100m dash is now a solved problem.
There's a lot of flat lands with spinifex in certain areas (easily a couple of United Kingdoms in size) and even a touch of mesa won't help narrow a location down from the general are as there are many of those with identical edge profiles.
But sure "Pilbara", "Kimberley", "Wheatbelt" can be geo guessed .. it's a real challenge to narrow down (I spent some time doing wet film photogrammetry prior to sheperding in WGS84 differential GPS locating and digital film and multi spectral geophysical aquisition).
No so hard if there's a few relatively unique man made features.
A GeoGuessr player, GeoWizard, has done a few “straight line challenges”, where he attempts to walk across a country in as straight a line as possible, usually planning beforehand with Google Earth and PostGIS. This got me thinking of what could fairly be thought of as “crossing”, since obviously you couldn’t describe e.g. walking from one side of Florida to the other as “crossing the USA”.
My best thought was to set the ending point of the line by following the border of the country in each direction til they met on the other side. To avoid the fractal coastline problem, use the challenger’s stride length as the unit of measure for the border.
But perhaps there is a better, more rigorous way of defining the opposite point on the edge of an arbitrary polygon.
Some might then say that "crossing" that polygon is to travel that longest line across the greatest width.
This simplistically avoids the question of concave polygons, complex polgons with exclusions (the Vatican state is removed from the Italian contry bounds), polgon collections (the nation of Fiji has many islands and can be tricky to traverse on foot .. not forgetting that perhaps the longest diameter might be from one island to another with no other islands between).
There's also the challenge of parallel lines on a 2D 'spherical' manifold, the almost spherical abstract ellipsoid of earth (or very non ellipsoidal Geoid if we take a constant gravitation value as the surface). On such manifolds lines are Great Circles (more or less) and always intersect.
Still, lets just say you're looking for the longest walkable(?) great circle path across a country that might go outside that country and perhaps is best travelled by a crop duster at 80m ground clearance to avoid getting feet wet.
The challenge itself takes some posing.
Meanwhile, less abstractly, I do like a jolly that "crosses a country" in a manner accepted by a (Wo)Man on a Clapham omnibus.
eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Davidson only went "half way", but that was accepted as an epic crossing. https://thelongridersguild.com/stories/stef-gebbie.htm "only" crossed most of the E-W distance across the lower portion of the country, while https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-03/french-woman-conquers... travelled North - South, the long bit, but not quite coast to coast ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicentennial_National_Trail ).
No moving, no panning, and no zooming is too hard. Moving is too boring. Pan and zoom is just the right balance.
The question here isn't a casual guessing game, but threat models (as directly addressed in TFA), and general informational hygiene.
Clearly one's interpretation is a function of the paradigm one exists in.
No, that is a seriously weird and imaginary perversion that you've invented, unless you have some citation to a doctrine. Christians do not consider body organs as "devices" nor do our churches teach doctrine on "external computers", if you refer to the Holy Trinity as such? Are you thinking of Latter-Day Saints mythology, or Scientology?
Your description is quite reductive in many aspects, including temporality and misuse of technical nomenclature. Thanks for telling religious people what we think and claim, though, and thanks for the amazing overgeneralized blanket dismissal.
In fact, humans used to be called "Computers" in terms of their job roles, that is, a human in an office was given math/physics problems to solve, and they'd use tools such as slide rule, paper and pencil to "compute" those problems and solve them.
There was more than one example of a fantasy "panopticon" by which a central observer or observers could watch everything going on, for example in a prison facility, and those observers could report findings to human computers, who would process the data and submit it up to the authorities, for meta-analysis and taking action on new developments or trends.
Uh okay but let us not be reductive, because again you are confusing physicality and temporal space with spiritual reality, which is nuanced. A Christian would never say that “the soul [never] exists inside the body” because what do you mean by “inside”? That begs the question. Look up hylomorphism:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/i...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism
While the soul, in death, can indeed exist apart from the body, even after the destruction of the physical human body, the soul is immortal, and lives on, in anticipation of its reuniting with that body. Whether in Heaven or Hell, the soul and body shall be reunited.
Even if the body is “destroyed” by physical means, that is a subjective judgement by human senses, and that glorified body will be reconstituted by Almighty God for everlasting unity with the soul.
> emergent property of the brain
Unfortunately, even this scientific definition is reductive. It ignores the theology of the Soul as an animating principle of everything that is created. Animals have souls [thus their name derived from “anima”]; rocks and stones have souls; trees have souls rivers have souls: everything that we can detect in this world, and every invisible thing, possesses a soul.
The difference with human souls regards their essence and immortality. But material souls are likewise considered souls in orthodox theology, and this should be considered by scientists.
Even in an “eternal death” in Hell, the body and the soul will be reunited there for eternal torture, body and soul.
and Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on religion or the fungible and unquantifiable soul concept
Also your computer is like a car. Your car works because there's a hamster or three in there and they keep them well-fed. Your computer also has a hamster, or a guinea pig sometimes. And your computer sends http packets over next door by means of carrier pigeons, or sometimes by semaphore.
Also men enjoy action-adventure films. Men enjoy films with lots of shooting. All men enjoy films with loud noises and special effects. Men like rock music with distorted guitars and loud drums. Men like loud soundsin general; that's why men are soldiers because we can blow stuff up and we listen to it.
"The Unicorn is most particular in its affections and has a fondness for beautiful virgins..."
https://medium.com/luminasticity/meditation-on-the-unicorn-d...
Going the other way, it’s not clear that a Turing-complete model of computation can tractably implement (say) crow cognition. Turing machines can solve arbitrary systems of Schrödinger equations, so theoretically we could simulate every atom in a crow’s body and get an AI crow[1]. But that’s obviously intractable for any known physical computer, and would remain intractable even if we moved to proteins rather than atoms. So are there higher-order “primitives” of crow cognition that can be implemented on a Turing machine? Or is the problem akin to integration, where neat “symbolic” solutions are impossible for most brains, and only “numeric” approaches work?
[1] This is also true for humans: even if you take a loopy quantum consciousness approach, AGI is theoretically possible. Sometimes you see people arguing against AGI on the grounds of Gödel-incompleteness, but this is a mystical nonsense understanding of what Gödel actually proved.