... until we are all REQUIRED by law to use this system, and regularly submit our updates to the Office of Homeland Security.
No problem, right? Surely you have nothing to hide?
"Do you remember the Americans, where did they go"
- Steve
Random Comments on Biology and Slashdot
on
Ready, Steady, Evolve
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Every so often, a biological/evolutionary/ecological topic comes up on Slashdot. Now, folks here are mostly engineers of one sort or another, not biologists, and it shows.
I have an MS in ecology and population genetics, but have also made my living in the CS field for years (to pay the mortgage, you understand:-) As someone who has way more than dabbled in both fields, I can say that a hard engineering mindset does not lend itself to understanding the biological sciences in general, and ecology/evolution in particular.
Evolution (and I've taught college courses on the subject) is not engineering. To understand it, you need to understand ecology, genetics, biochemistry, lots of general biology, etc., etc. There are few topics with more misunderstandings, by people who think they understand it all, and don't. Including some people in the field, har har.
Finally, regarding the Creationists and the "irreducible complexity" thing. As the Theory of Evolution got traction in the intellectual world, the Creationists always pointed out something we didn't understand as proof of a Creator. As more and more became understood, they retreated to the next thing. This was called the "God of the gaps" approach - if we don't understand NOW what's going on, it must be GOD!
That's how I feel about "irreducible complexity". It will be found to be reducible. Well, maybe, mabye not. Where is it written that talking monkeys should necessarily come to understand the Cosmos in all its glory? That's what we are, boys and girls. For all our wonderful accumulated knowledge, there's an infinite ocean of subtlety out there... there's no guarantee that it's all accessible to our brand of cognition or any other computation either.
We return you now to your regularly scheduled trollfest...
"Ironically it contradicts itself the evolutionary theory by such plants and animals with "hidden genes" are more prone to get gene-defect diseases like cancer etc. So that's basically a huge evolutionary drawback which should have eliminated by evolution."
No, because there is nothing evolutionarily "bad" about cancer, so long as you don't get it until you've had offspring.
"But we have record in all older human of a superior alien power interfering which life on this planet."
So aliens came and jiggered with life on earth - cool. One then simply wonders... how did this superior alien lifeform come about? Infinite regress...
"You guy defending the evolution theory so keenly are in fact a new kind of religious zealot - you just replaced the trinity with natural sciences. I wonder when the first fires will burn and the whitchhunts start."
Total sensationalist bullshit. There are many, many excellent popular books on the subject. Why not educate yourself? Or wait for the aliens to take you away...
" If evolution is trial and error, then how would evolution know what to queue up? It could be a queued up sequence of disastrous changes."
Evolution most definitely does NOT know what to queue up. And yes, it might queue up disastrous changes. A lot of natural selection takes place very early in embryonic development, and the real disastrous changes are eliminated right then and there (reabsorption, miscarriages, spontaneous abortions).
That said, as an ardent evolutionist with an MS in population genetics, I sometimes have to wonder about things like the bombardier beetle. The genome has its own "grammar", and the simple model, while a decent big picture, doesn't (yet) cover the incredible complexity and subtlety of what's going on.
Natural selection doesn't work on genes, it works on phenotypes - the expression of those genes. If a bunch of mutations are "hidden" for a time, but then suddenly expressed in a time of "need" (i.e., rapidly changing environment), selection can then do its thing.
This finding in no way goes against natural selection.
"I work with a lot of people in their 40's, so I just did an informal asking-around... none of them heard of her either. Either these people are out of touch with their generation, or your statement that "most of them have heard her" might not be entirely accurate."
It is the former - they are out of touch. Janis Ian was very well-known and popular to people of my generation (I'm a doddering 47 years old).
Re:Time-travel paradoxes...
on
ChronoSpace
·
· Score: 2
Yes, I saw the word "not". I was merely poking fun at the idea that a time-travel story could get old. You know, fun, humor, light-heartedness? Man, this place is getting prickly.
Time-travel paradoxes...
on
ChronoSpace
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"looked like an interesting time-travel thriller-- something we've seen many of, but not a story that gets old due to its variations"
Three statisticians go out hunting, and they spot a deer. The first one shoots, but the shot goes a foot high. The second one shoots, but it goes a foot low. The third one yells "we got him!
First off, the goal of the corporate entities on the Internet from Day 1 has been to turn it into TV. They've largely succeeded.
Second, the idea that "market forces" can affect anything is rather touching, but so naive. The corporation$ will determine what you are allowed to "choose". Sort of like Republicans vs. Democrats, Ford vs. Chevy, etc. Some fucking choice.
So, the Web was made to function, and the corps took it over, corrupted and polluted it. Who is surprised? Who thinks that anything but huge $$$ runs anything any more?
I always thought "Mozilla" was a stupid name for a fucking web browser. Maybe they can have a contest to come up with a new name. How about "grp" (pronounced "Gurp"). Stands for Gecko Reference Platform. Whatever.
Re:I guess I am too young ...
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 2
"It never occured to me that there might be a place that there *ISN'T* TV."
"Guess what? We've been able to do this since the 40s. What do you think the targeting computers they put on B-24's are? All modern fire control computers are designed to precisely solve this problem, and do it a far sight better than meat tends to."
Guess what? Not even remotely the same problem! I'm not talking about the Cartesian goodness of a plane on a certain vector shooting down something else going on a certain vector. Try getting a robot to reach over and pick up a cup of coffee and bring it to its "mouth" in a second or two... can't be done. Try making a bipedal robot that can walk and run and pick things up and throw them. Try making a fucking insect, for that matter. Can't be done.
"I won't argue that the human brain has room for improvement - the downside of relying on natural selection for your design is you're only guaranteed to get something that works, not something that works as well as possible."
Well put! The only thing I would disagree with is that it's necessarily a "downside". The whole idea of "room for improvement" is interesting... You also have to think about time and a changing environment and set of challenges. You can optimize something now, but maybe in the long run, a more generalized approach is more useful. After all, it is very specialized species that tend to go extinct...
Humans seem to be the ultimate generalists...
In the immortal words of Adam Osborne... "adequate is sufficient". OK, it's a tautology, but it's a cool quote. Of course, he also used to be fond of saying "you can always tell the pioneers - they're the ones with the arrows in their backs". Where IS Adam these days?:-)
"Significantly, no one has ever proved that the brain is a *good* computer."
And yet, after (insert duration since humans appeared based on latest estimate) years, here we are.
"It seems to run some tasks like visual recognition better than our existing machines, but it is terrible at math..."
That's because -precise- math is evidently (get ready for this) relatively unimportant for carrying on in the real world! When a robot, on the run, can throw a stone and hit something else that's on the run, talk to me about shitty meat computers and the superiority of "clean and dry" computers.
"... prone to errors, susceptible to distraction,
the source of all innovation, change, progress...
" and it requires half its uptime for food, sleep, and maintenance."
Most of which is fun:-)
"It sometimes seems to me that the brain is actually a very shitty computer. So why would you want to build a computer out of slimy, wet, broken, slow, hungry, tired neurons? I chose computer science over medical school because I don't have the stomach for those icky, bloody body parts."
This guy hates his body.
"I prefer my technology clean and dry, thank you. Moreover, it could be the case that an electronic, silicon-based computer is more reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper.
Go download yourself then. I know you have suffered from depression, but the whole idea that "reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper" is the most important part of being a conscious entity demands some explanation. What is the point of intelligence? There's something we don't talk about much on/., eh?
"But to me that does not rule out the possibility of reducing the mind to a mathematical description, which is more or less independent of the underlying brain archiecture. That baby doesn't go out with the bathwater. A.I. is possible precisely because there is nothing special about the brain as a computer."
Well, this is precisely what nobody knows, and why we play the AI game. Maybe someday we'll know.
"In fact the brain is a shitty computer. The brain has to sleep, needs food, thinks about sex all the time. Useless!"
I'm sure this is an exaggeration to make a point, but again I say... here we are.
"I always say, if I wanted to build a computer from scratch, the very last material I would choose to work with is meat."
Who is this very perceptive and canny "I" that is making this most fundamental decision? It's a fucking meat computer, that's who.
"And remember, no one has proved that our intelligence is a successful adaption, over the long term. It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created."
True enough, though I would bet that, although we might be facing some major (if not cataclysmic) upheavals of our own making in the near-mid future, something from the human line will survive and keep on keepin' on.
I'm sorry, I know this fellow suffers from depression and all, but the fact of the matter is that meat computers are not "shitty", and the "it remains to be seen" idea cuts both ways.
The other fact of the matter is that nobody knows how consciousness works. No, not anybody, not even Dennet:-). If there is awesome silicon intelligence that isn't self-aware and conscious, who fucking cares?
This guy makes me sad. He represents something pathetic to me.
I have been TV-free for 10 years now, and believe me, I don't miss it at all. You only have so many hours a day/a life - why yield them up to shit programming chock full of shit advertising?
To hear people complain about TV advertising, and yet go on watching TV like it's some necessity of life like food or water or air, makes me want to cry/laugh.
Anyway, it's your life. If you want to sell it, that's your business. But don't whine once you've made your choice. And it IS your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
You're sig really hirt.
- S
... but nobody's forcing you to watch TV. Though I suppose that's not the only medium to which this technology might be applied.
"Bull! We currently have the technology (assuming big bucks) to send multi-generational colonies to other star systems."
Bull! We do not!
"...said the man to Christopher Columbus."
Not at all analogous, and totally irrelevant.
... until we are all REQUIRED by law to use this system, and regularly submit our updates to the Office of Homeland Security.
No problem, right? Surely you have nothing to hide?
"Do you remember the Americans,
where did they go"
- Steve
Every so often, a biological/evolutionary/ecological topic comes up on Slashdot. Now, folks here are mostly engineers of one sort or another, not biologists, and it shows.
:-) As someone who has way more than dabbled in both fields, I can say that a hard engineering mindset does not lend itself to understanding the biological sciences in general, and ecology/evolution in particular.
I have an MS in ecology and population genetics, but have also made my living in the CS field for years (to pay the mortgage, you understand
Evolution (and I've taught college courses on the subject) is not engineering. To understand it, you need to understand ecology, genetics, biochemistry, lots of general biology, etc., etc. There are few topics with more misunderstandings, by people who think they understand it all, and don't. Including some people in the field, har har.
Finally, regarding the Creationists and the "irreducible complexity" thing. As the Theory of Evolution got traction in the intellectual world, the Creationists always pointed out something we didn't understand as proof of a Creator. As more and more became understood, they retreated to the next thing. This was called the "God of the gaps" approach - if we don't understand NOW what's going on, it must be GOD!
That's how I feel about "irreducible complexity". It will be found to be reducible. Well, maybe, mabye not. Where is it written that talking monkeys should necessarily come to understand the Cosmos in all its glory? That's what we are, boys and girls. For all our wonderful accumulated knowledge, there's an infinite ocean of subtlety out there... there's no guarantee that it's all accessible to our brand of cognition or any other computation either.
We return you now to your regularly scheduled trollfest...
"Ironically it contradicts itself the evolutionary theory by such plants and animals with "hidden genes" are more prone to get gene-defect diseases like cancer etc. So that's basically a huge evolutionary drawback which should have eliminated by evolution."
No, because there is nothing evolutionarily "bad" about cancer, so long as you don't get it until you've had offspring.
"But we have record in all older human of a superior alien power interfering which life on this planet."
So aliens came and jiggered with life on earth - cool. One then simply wonders... how did this superior alien lifeform come about? Infinite regress...
"You guy defending the evolution theory so keenly are in fact a new kind of religious zealot - you just replaced the trinity with natural sciences.
I wonder when the first fires will burn and the whitchhunts start."
Total sensationalist bullshit. There are many, many excellent popular books on the subject. Why not educate yourself? Or wait for the aliens to take you away...
" If evolution is trial and error, then how would evolution know what to queue up? It could be a queued up sequence of disastrous changes."
Evolution most definitely does NOT know what to queue up. And yes, it might queue up disastrous changes. A lot of natural selection takes place very early in embryonic development, and the real disastrous changes are eliminated right then and there (reabsorption, miscarriages, spontaneous abortions).
That said, as an ardent evolutionist with an MS in population genetics, I sometimes have to wonder about things like the bombardier beetle. The genome has its own "grammar", and the simple model, while a decent big picture, doesn't (yet) cover the incredible complexity and subtlety of what's going on.
Natural selection doesn't work on genes, it works on phenotypes - the expression of those genes. If a bunch of mutations are "hidden" for a time, but then suddenly expressed in a time of "need" (i.e., rapidly changing environment), selection can then do its thing.
This finding in no way goes against natural selection.
"I work with a lot of people in their 40's, so I just did an informal asking-around... none of them heard of her either. Either these people are out of touch with their generation, or your statement that "most of them have heard her" might not be entirely accurate."
It is the former - they are out of touch. Janis Ian was very well-known and popular to people of my generation (I'm a doddering 47 years old).
Yes, I saw the word "not". I was merely poking fun at the idea that a time-travel story could get old. You know, fun, humor, light-heartedness? Man, this place is getting prickly.
"looked like an interesting time-travel thriller-- something we've seen many of, but not a story that gets old due to its variations"
:-)
How can time-travel get old?
A little story about the mean:
Three statisticians go out hunting, and they spot a deer. The first one shoots, but the shot goes a foot high. The second one shoots, but it goes a foot low. The third one yells "we got him!
First off, the goal of the corporate entities on the Internet from Day 1 has been to turn it into TV. They've largely succeeded.
Second, the idea that "market forces" can affect anything is rather touching, but so naive. The corporation$ will determine what you are allowed to "choose". Sort of like Republicans vs. Democrats, Ford vs. Chevy, etc. Some fucking choice.
So, the Web was made to function, and the corps took it over, corrupted and polluted it. Who is surprised? Who thinks that anything but huge $$$ runs anything any more?
Ack.
You know, when every other fucking word you write is "fuck*", you come across a fucking fuckwit. In conclusion, fuck off.
I am curious as to how much post-D/A-conversion "coloring" done in CD players, intentionally or not. Any comments?
I always thought "Mozilla" was a stupid name for a fucking web browser. Maybe they can have a contest to come up with a new name. How about "grp" (pronounced "Gurp"). Stands for Gecko Reference Platform. Whatever.
"It never occured to me that there might be a place that there *ISN'T* TV."
:-)
There is such a place... my house
"Guess what? We've been able to do this since the 40s. What do you think the targeting computers they put on B-24's are? All modern fire control computers are designed to precisely solve this problem, and do it a far sight better than meat tends to."
Guess what? Not even remotely the same problem! I'm not talking about the Cartesian goodness of a plane on a certain vector shooting down something else going on a certain vector. Try getting a robot to reach over and pick up a cup of coffee and bring it to its "mouth" in a second or two... can't be done. Try making a bipedal robot that can walk and run and pick things up and throw them. Try making a fucking insect, for that matter. Can't be done.
The real world is messy, not Cartesian.
"I won't argue that the human brain has room for improvement - the downside of relying on natural selection for your design is you're only guaranteed to get something that works, not something that works as well as possible."
:-)
Well put! The only thing I would disagree with is that it's necessarily a "downside". The whole idea of "room for improvement" is interesting... You also have to think about time and a changing environment and set of challenges. You can optimize something now, but maybe in the long run, a more generalized approach is more useful. After all, it is very specialized species that tend to go extinct...
Humans seem to be the ultimate generalists...
In the immortal words of Adam Osborne... "adequate is sufficient". OK, it's a tautology, but it's a cool quote. Of course, he also used to be fond of saying "you can always tell the pioneers - they're the ones with the arrows in their backs". Where IS Adam these days?
"Significantly, no one has ever proved that the brain is a *good* computer."
:-)
/., eh?
:-). If there is awesome silicon intelligence that isn't self-aware and conscious, who fucking cares?
And yet, after (insert duration since humans appeared based on latest estimate) years, here we are.
"It seems to run some tasks like visual recognition better than our existing machines, but it is terrible at math..."
That's because -precise- math is evidently (get ready for this) relatively unimportant for carrying on in the real world! When a robot, on the run, can throw a stone and hit something else that's on the run, talk to me about shitty meat computers and the superiority of "clean and dry" computers.
"... prone to errors, susceptible to distraction,
the source of all innovation, change, progress...
" and it requires half its uptime for food, sleep, and maintenance."
Most of which is fun
"It sometimes seems to me that the brain is actually a very shitty computer. So why would you want to build a computer out of slimy, wet, broken, slow, hungry, tired neurons? I chose computer science over medical school because I don't have the stomach for those icky, bloody body parts."
This guy hates his body.
"I prefer my technology clean and dry, thank you. Moreover, it could be the case that an electronic, silicon-based computer is more reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper.
Go download yourself then. I know you have suffered from depression, but the whole idea that "reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper" is the most important part of being a conscious entity demands some explanation. What is the point of intelligence? There's something we don't talk about much on
"But to me that does not rule out the possibility of reducing the mind to a mathematical description, which is more or less independent of the underlying brain archiecture. That baby doesn't go out with the bathwater. A.I. is possible precisely because there is nothing special about the brain as a computer."
Well, this is precisely what nobody knows, and why we play the AI game. Maybe someday we'll know.
"In fact the brain is a shitty computer. The brain has to sleep, needs food, thinks about sex all the time. Useless!"
I'm sure this is an exaggeration to make a point, but again I say... here we are.
"I always say, if I wanted to build a computer from scratch, the very last material I would choose to work with is meat."
Who is this very perceptive and canny "I" that is making this most fundamental decision? It's a fucking meat computer, that's who.
"And remember, no one has proved that our intelligence is a successful adaption, over the long term. It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created."
True enough, though I would bet that, although we might be facing some major (if not cataclysmic) upheavals of our own making in the near-mid future, something from the human line will survive and keep on keepin' on.
I'm sorry, I know this fellow suffers from depression and all, but the fact of the matter is that meat computers are not "shitty", and the "it remains to be seen" idea cuts both ways.
The other fact of the matter is that nobody knows how consciousness works. No, not anybody, not even Dennet
This guy makes me sad. He represents something pathetic to me.
Wow, I've really rambled.
- Steve
Yes, we're all gonna die! That's the Great Equalizer... nobody gets out alive!
Goddamit all to hell - where are my mod points! ROTFLMAO! (ASTC)
Seriously,
I have been TV-free for 10 years now, and believe me, I don't miss it at all. You only have so many hours a day/a life - why yield them up to shit programming chock full of shit advertising?
To hear people complain about TV advertising, and yet go on watching TV like it's some necessity of life like food or water or air, makes me want to cry/laugh.
Anyway, it's your life. If you want to sell it, that's your business. But don't whine once you've made your choice. And it IS your choice.
"Earth First - We'll strip mine the other planets later."
Ha ha ha! Just where do you live, asshole?