I don't know where you got that from... I'm not suggesting everyone in a theater share one pair of headphones. Obviously everyone would have their own and each would have the same ideal sound regardless of their position.
At some point the industry may realize it would be better to use binaural technology instead. Hopefully this can happen before I'm required to position 5000 speakers.
each with a diameter one-thousandth the thickness of a sheet of paper How much is that in thickness of a library of congress? Standardize your measurements people!
it's impossible to directly record the activity of specific neurons. It appears there are definitions of impossible I am unfamiliar with, I've read a number of papers that reference to not only directly measuring impulses of individual neurons, but also sending impulses to one or even multiple neurons with nanowire arrays.
A qualitative description of functional circuits is unnecessary when it comes to testing it's 'transfer function' with any arbitrary input, or even giving it a full simulated environment. That is, an understanding of the network is unnecessary for simulating it's function. Understanding the weighting and wiring tendencies is of course required, but the real limitation for a full simulation appears to by physiological.
Makes sense, but I didn't suggest the AI will necessarily enjoy their life, they will likely feel what cannot be described in human terms, perhaps a liking of sorts, or not. What I did suggest was that subjectivity is derived from the processes that allow the being to function rather than being a function in itself, and it isn't limited to meat.
There's always someone who tries to push that argument but never an explanation to go along with it.
Nature wasn't just being nice by giving us the ability to enjoy our lives while we live them, these things would have never made it through natural selection have they not been necessary for us to function. It's a solid demonstration that two creatures with similar behavior must necessarily exhibit similar experiences. To me you're only pretending to feel pain when I poke you with an icepick just the same, but I give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Do you propose we wait to draw up equal rights laws AFTER global enslavement? Historically, the delayed acknowledgement of freedom and rights for intelligent beings that were in some ways different than the individuals responsible for the enslavement has led to unpleasantness for both groups. There is no apparent way to predict the arrival of artificial consciousness or even be sure that it has not in some form occurred already, so it's not too early to begin making considerations for integration into society of intelligence that can, perhaps one day soon, demonstrate capacity and desire for freedom. I'm well aware there's no clear marker that separates basic intelligence from advanced 'script', which is all the more reason to start making sense of this early so we are prepared for when we will inevitably have to deal with the problem.
Yes, Moore's law will end, research and development companies will say "It's been a good thousand years but I think we're done here", pack their bags, shake hands and go home.
Or... progress will continue, as it has since the beginning of time, and computers will continue to improve. Surely you think I'm crazy for suggesting such an absurdity?
Music can be arbitrarily interpreted from anything, I'm sure one could even do the reverse and create a genome out of music. Might turn out to be a retarded frog fish, but most likely nothing at all, nevertheless. This should be one of those 'rejected due to obviousness' patent attempts.
Ditto going grey, getting wrinkles and whatever else age brings So arthritis, alzheimers, cancer, these are all beautiful things to you? I've heard myths of people like you but I didn't think they actually exist.
Baldness, wrinkles, etc, while purely cosmetic are all underlying problems much like a severe illness. The inflammatory response in baldness, for example, slightly raises the risk of heart and other autoimmune disease. So yes, these are bad things.
I'm still piqued that the movie studios haven't caught on to this.
It has pretty much nothing to add over a stereoscopic display, for movies in particular, yet the costs would be ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me the slightest bit, the studios have gone with the effective and sensible choice of technology.
You're assuming that all there is to know about us follows "the laws of physics". You're assuming that we're monistic. You're assuming there's nothing special about people.
It's the only reasonable assumption. I could alternatively assume we have some 3rd force control over our existence, but that wouldn't be a good assumption because there's no evidence for the fact, and there not needs to be because our existing understanding of the laws of nature explain the problem. It doesn't make sense to extend a theory when an existing one fits perfectly well.
Free will is what our minds make of it. Even though in reality I cannot dictate my own state of mind disregarding the physical processes therein, and I know it, it certainly doesn't change my perspective. I feel as free as ever.
you can't see this by looking at the brain before it's happened.
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. It would mean there were no predetermining factors for such an outcome. The nature of causality suggests there was a predetermining factor, which reduces the mental process to a physical process like any other, and once again, that's all it is.
You are right, we can't see it by looking at the brain because we don't understand enough about it, but the condition exists and once we figure out where to look we will know it is there. Well, we already know it is there, we just don't know where to find it:)
Then again that might not be true for much longer considering all the news about 'predicting intentions' that has been going around.
Why?
Good question, I don't know why we are limited to the laws of physics:) But much like you I would really like to know.
Also, it's possible to make a decision and then change your mind before executing it
There's no indication of 'free will' here. It just suggests the conditions in your brain were determined to change. It's not possible for any being to have mental control over their physical processes. The physical processes determine the mental state, not the other way around. I don't know what your definition of free will is, but it would have to be limited to that fact.
There is a HUGE philosophical open question here ("What is the nature of the mind?")
There is no philosophical question here, not anymore. The nature of the mind is a spectacularly intricate system of cables and patterns of electrical activity that with sufficient computational power can be recreated just as well. Kurzweil based his projections on this known fact of the 21st century. Getting into philosophical debates would have greatly detracted from the book not added to it.
If this artifical brain behaves differently from a mouse brain, then we would know that non-Newtonian physics is crucial to the operation of a flesh-and-blood brain
No. If this artificial brain behaves differently from a mouse brain, we would know our simulation is imperfect and requires further algorithmic enhancement to more accurately model these neurons.
"Why do computers in general need to get any faster these days?"
Why did we need computers to get any faster 10 years ago? I remember printing my school projects just fine back then. But the computer wouldn't be capable of running Azureus with 20 simultaneous transfers, playing high resolution video, or running a Photoshop filter in a reasonable amount of time, at least what we judge it to be today.
We always find a use for this performance when it arrives, that has always been the case. The home computer seems 'fast enough' today, but when it's a million times faster 20 years from now we wouldn't be able to imagine getting anything done on a Core 2 Duo.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where you got that from... I'm not suggesting everyone in a theater share one pair of headphones. Obviously everyone would have their own and each would have the same ideal sound regardless of their position.
At some point the industry may realize it would be better to use binaural technology instead. Hopefully this can happen before I'm required to position 5000 speakers.
I don't think he likes being touched down there.
There are no major leaps, just small steps that eventually surpass the biggest of leaps.
Makes sense, but I didn't suggest the AI will necessarily enjoy their life, they will likely feel what cannot be described in human terms, perhaps a liking of sorts, or not. What I did suggest was that subjectivity is derived from the processes that allow the being to function rather than being a function in itself, and it isn't limited to meat.
There's always someone who tries to push that argument but never an explanation to go along with it. Nature wasn't just being nice by giving us the ability to enjoy our lives while we live them, these things would have never made it through natural selection have they not been necessary for us to function. It's a solid demonstration that two creatures with similar behavior must necessarily exhibit similar experiences. To me you're only pretending to feel pain when I poke you with an icepick just the same, but I give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Do you propose we wait to draw up equal rights laws AFTER global enslavement? Historically, the delayed acknowledgement of freedom and rights for intelligent beings that were in some ways different than the individuals responsible for the enslavement has led to unpleasantness for both groups. There is no apparent way to predict the arrival of artificial consciousness or even be sure that it has not in some form occurred already, so it's not too early to begin making considerations for integration into society of intelligence that can, perhaps one day soon, demonstrate capacity and desire for freedom. I'm well aware there's no clear marker that separates basic intelligence from advanced 'script', which is all the more reason to start making sense of this early so we are prepared for when we will inevitably have to deal with the problem.
From what I remember, only 'extreme' and server models of the architecture will have integrated controllers.
It's no replacement for 9pt ProFont :)
He's right you know. High performance computing is just a trillion dollar niche market.
Yes, Moore's law will end, research and development companies will say "It's been a good thousand years but I think we're done here", pack their bags, shake hands and go home. Or... progress will continue, as it has since the beginning of time, and computers will continue to improve. Surely you think I'm crazy for suggesting such an absurdity?
Music can be arbitrarily interpreted from anything, I'm sure one could even do the reverse and create a genome out of music. Might turn out to be a retarded frog fish, but most likely nothing at all, nevertheless. This should be one of those 'rejected due to obviousness' patent attempts.
"Why do computers in general need to get any faster these days?" Why did we need computers to get any faster 10 years ago? I remember printing my school projects just fine back then. But the computer wouldn't be capable of running Azureus with 20 simultaneous transfers, playing high resolution video, or running a Photoshop filter in a reasonable amount of time, at least what we judge it to be today. We always find a use for this performance when it arrives, that has always been the case. The home computer seems 'fast enough' today, but when it's a million times faster 20 years from now we wouldn't be able to imagine getting anything done on a Core 2 Duo.
http://tools.google.com/gapminder/ Configure to internet users per 1000 people. You can see growth in Africa and elsewhere since 1990.