I worked developing mobile telecom equipment for a company that mostly sells to undeveloped countries. This is sort of true in that undeveloped nations often don't have a land-line network in place, and it is far easier to set up a wireless network. So people are more likely to have a mobile phone than a stationary phone. However, impoverished people still don't have phones. It ends up being interesting because the standard Western usage models for phones don't work out at all. We can't calculate the number of available channels needed per subscriber the same way. Many mobile phones in these areas will be involved in active calls nearly 24 hours a day. The reason why is that people will buy a phone and account, and then hire people in shifts to stand on the street corner shouting out that they've got a phone. They then let people make calls for a markup.
I mean, if you'd like to switch to a completely argument, regarding peer reviewed articles on the concept of near-death experiences as evidence of the supernatural (and I'm not sure you are. Your wording confuses me some) Near death experiences exist, and there is nothing wrong with discussing them in peer reviewed publications. They don't provide evidence for supernatural phenomena though. Show me one of those "I was floating above the room" stories where they do something like win a game of win lose or draw while the patient is blindfolded in a double blind scenario, and I'll change my tune.
But this is just the off-topic discussion of the nature of skepticism. If the only "evidence" is a leap that can only be made sense of by the reader accepting an implicit intervention by supernatural forces, then you've not written a good paper. Or at least, as TFA's intro hints at, not one that is appropriate for the realm of science.
I completely see where you're coming from. But I'm afraid I pulled the analogies out of my nebulous ass. It's very likely that I heard the ant one elsewhere, and the cache one is just sorta obvious. If I did hear it, it was probably on one of those horrible overdigested shows that often fails to make a distinction between well reviewed science and psuedoscience statistical fallacy bullshit (e.g. Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman).
I constantly marvel at how much we can't verifiably prove we know about the nature of the brain. I'm optimistic we're going to learn things steadily, but compared to so many other things, good lord, we've got a long way to go.
A turing machine is computable, and it can always be predicted, it merely requires all of the exact same input that it receives. In other words, to mimic a "true" random number generator, you just need a copy of its entropy. It's computable because the turing machine computed it. This is what computable means, it's a very formal term in the theory of Computer Science.
You don't need to identify or enumerate the algorithm. You only need to show that a working algorithm exists. A functional solution does exist. If it didn't, consciousness wouldn't be a reality, it would just be a nice idea. And we're not debating the existence of conciousness, because descartes did the whole cogito ergo sum thing.
Yes, I read about this study, and did not find it surprising, and it does raise some interesting points. I thought about bringing them up, but it gets into a whole bunch of "yeah but" things. Memory can be modified, by more recent experiences, one of those experiences being a recollection of said memory, or by physical or chemical influence, beat on the head, drugs, stroke. But the degradation is only in certain aspects. For example, if you memorize the pledge of allegiance, you aren't going to start fucking it up by reciting it more and more.
I did not assert that there is no supernatural element. I stated clearly that it was the only alternative that would fulfill the requirements. TFA did not invoke the supernatural, so it did not make a proper argument. If the brain does have a supernatural element, that would be extremely exciting to prove. So if you can eliminate the impossible and have supernatural influence being the only remaining solution, concretely, that's some nobel winning shit right there. I'll keep an eye out for such a discovery on/.
I am well aware that is the definition of computable. Neither you nor TFA has shown why consciousness is not computable. The only way that conciousness can be non-computable is if the brain does something outside of the realm of Von Newman Architecture in the abstract sense. It receives input in the form of electrical and chemical stimulation, it is able to store information in the form of memory (however that memory works doesn't particularly matter) it performs operations based on memory and input, and it produces output in the form of electrical stimuli and neurotransmitters. If the brain follows Von Newman architecture, then it is a computer that produces conciousness, there for it is computable. Proof by counterexample.
"retrieving them repeatedly would cause them to gradually decay"
Ouch. Just. Ouch. No. Noooo. NOOOOO.
There is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start. It implies that the memory is overwritten with the memory of recalling the memory, which is a huge and ridiculous assumption. Memory likely works much more like ant paths. The details that are recalled more frequently are reinforced, and can be remembered longer. It could also be compared to a caching algorithm; details used more often are less likely to be lost, or need fewer hints to retrieve them.
And then using this assumption to declare something as non-computable demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of computability. The only way that conciousness could be non-computable would be if there is a supernatural element to it. Otherwise, the fact that it exists means it must be computable.
Projecting specifically onto the fingers in the realm of augmented reality, thus requiring tracking the fingers' position as they move, and then gauging when each portion of the fingers is touched for the sake of alphanumeric input is a specific innovation. And it certainly extends beyond laser projected keyboards.
It is at least a kinda clever idea, unlike many patents we hear about on/.
I doubt we'll get a good answer on this. But Sanger's involvement was my number one question when I first heard about efforts to make a T7G3. I was really bummed to hear it wasn't going to work out. The replacement guy is obviously very talented, but still...The music isn't just a character of its own in those games, it is practically a lead role...
I think GP misspoke, but it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be interesting to see how homosexuals compare with heterosexuals of the same sex in this quality, in addition to looking at transgendered.
Yes. For the low investment cost of, say, $250,000, you can own a machine that laser-sinters metal into something that will allow you to make most parts of a gun with the possible exception of the springs. Or, you could ya know, buy a gun on the black market for a couple hundred.
My fingers were crossed hoping for this. I've always sorta figured that/. always had collapsible comments, I just wasn't clever enough to figure out what I needed to click to collapse them, and was too lazy to look into it...
As a software engineer, I hope/intend to age well, but I don't think I would age well at all if I was working at the DMV counter. But I believe that's a digression.
You cannot disprove a generalization by way of counterexample. Certainly, lots of old programmers are wonderful. They read the latest developments and new paradigms, and work to understand whether they are appropriate or not, and they have lots of experience that lets the quickly detect problems or avoid paths that will become future problems...But lots of them also just get burnt out. They haven't learned a thing since college, and/or they just want to put in their hours and go home until they are able to retire. Until someone does a survey that compares age and software development apptitude (which would be a really hard thing to do well), it's a valid archetype to watch out for. I fully expect I'll have to prove I'm one of those exceptions to the "rule" when I get to be an old coder.
Slashdot Mirror
I worked developing mobile telecom equipment for a company that mostly sells to undeveloped countries. This is sort of true in that undeveloped nations often don't have a land-line network in place, and it is far easier to set up a wireless network. So people are more likely to have a mobile phone than a stationary phone. However, impoverished people still don't have phones. It ends up being interesting because the standard Western usage models for phones don't work out at all. We can't calculate the number of available channels needed per subscriber the same way. Many mobile phones in these areas will be involved in active calls nearly 24 hours a day. The reason why is that people will buy a phone and account, and then hire people in shifts to stand on the street corner shouting out that they've got a phone. They then let people make calls for a markup.
But this is just the off-topic discussion of the nature of skepticism. If the only "evidence" is a leap that can only be made sense of by the reader accepting an implicit intervention by supernatural forces, then you've not written a good paper. Or at least, as TFA's intro hints at, not one that is appropriate for the realm of science.
I constantly marvel at how much we can't verifiably prove we know about the nature of the brain. I'm optimistic we're going to learn things steadily, but compared to so many other things, good lord, we've got a long way to go.
A turing machine is computable, and it can always be predicted, it merely requires all of the exact same input that it receives. In other words, to mimic a "true" random number generator, you just need a copy of its entropy. It's computable because the turing machine computed it. This is what computable means, it's a very formal term in the theory of Computer Science.
You don't need to identify or enumerate the algorithm. You only need to show that a working algorithm exists. A functional solution does exist. If it didn't, consciousness wouldn't be a reality, it would just be a nice idea. And we're not debating the existence of conciousness, because descartes did the whole cogito ergo sum thing.
Yes, I read about this study, and did not find it surprising, and it does raise some interesting points. I thought about bringing them up, but it gets into a whole bunch of "yeah but" things. Memory can be modified, by more recent experiences, one of those experiences being a recollection of said memory, or by physical or chemical influence, beat on the head, drugs, stroke. But the degradation is only in certain aspects. For example, if you memorize the pledge of allegiance, you aren't going to start fucking it up by reciting it more and more.
I did not assert that there is no supernatural element. I stated clearly that it was the only alternative that would fulfill the requirements. TFA did not invoke the supernatural, so it did not make a proper argument. If the brain does have a supernatural element, that would be extremely exciting to prove. So if you can eliminate the impossible and have supernatural influence being the only remaining solution, concretely, that's some nobel winning shit right there. I'll keep an eye out for such a discovery on /.
I am well aware that is the definition of computable. Neither you nor TFA has shown why consciousness is not computable. The only way that conciousness can be non-computable is if the brain does something outside of the realm of Von Newman Architecture in the abstract sense. It receives input in the form of electrical and chemical stimulation, it is able to store information in the form of memory (however that memory works doesn't particularly matter) it performs operations based on memory and input, and it produces output in the form of electrical stimuli and neurotransmitters. If the brain follows Von Newman architecture, then it is a computer that produces conciousness, there for it is computable. Proof by counterexample.
The halting problem exists. A functional solution to the halting problem does not exist. It does not exist because it is not computable.
Ouch. Just. Ouch. No. Noooo. NOOOOO.
There is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start. It implies that the memory is overwritten with the memory of recalling the memory, which is a huge and ridiculous assumption. Memory likely works much more like ant paths. The details that are recalled more frequently are reinforced, and can be remembered longer. It could also be compared to a caching algorithm; details used more often are less likely to be lost, or need fewer hints to retrieve them.
And then using this assumption to declare something as non-computable demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of computability. The only way that conciousness could be non-computable would be if there is a supernatural element to it. Otherwise, the fact that it exists means it must be computable.
I had to do far too much wandering about to find a simple image of the thing as it is to be used. Hope this helps someone: http://imgur.com/RzvY6nf
It is at least a kinda clever idea, unlike many patents we hear about on /.
I doubt we'll get a good answer on this. But Sanger's involvement was my number one question when I first heard about efforts to make a T7G3. I was really bummed to hear it wasn't going to work out. The replacement guy is obviously very talented, but still...The music isn't just a character of its own in those games, it is practically a lead role...
I think GP misspoke, but it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be interesting to see how homosexuals compare with heterosexuals of the same sex in this quality, in addition to looking at transgendered.
17 years from now, someone will write a listicle mentioning that graduating high school seniors have never seen a Blockbuster Video Store.
Yes. For the low investment cost of, say, $250,000, you can own a machine that laser-sinters metal into something that will allow you to make most parts of a gun with the possible exception of the springs. Or, you could ya know, buy a gun on the black market for a couple hundred.
Color me shocked!
My fingers were crossed hoping for this. I've always sorta figured that /. always had collapsible comments, I just wasn't clever enough to figure out what I needed to click to collapse them, and was too lazy to look into it...
This is one of the filthiest subject lines I've ever read on /.
You could. Sorta. And no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_switching
Walk away. Just walk away.
It pleases me that this is the first comment.
As a software engineer, I hope/intend to age well, but I don't think I would age well at all if I was working at the DMV counter. But I believe that's a digression.
Fine, a heuristic then.
You cannot disprove a generalization by way of counterexample. Certainly, lots of old programmers are wonderful. They read the latest developments and new paradigms, and work to understand whether they are appropriate or not, and they have lots of experience that lets the quickly detect problems or avoid paths that will become future problems...But lots of them also just get burnt out. They haven't learned a thing since college, and/or they just want to put in their hours and go home until they are able to retire. Until someone does a survey that compares age and software development apptitude (which would be a really hard thing to do well), it's a valid archetype to watch out for. I fully expect I'll have to prove I'm one of those exceptions to the "rule" when I get to be an old coder.