Even if you could apply some force to slowly accelerate a massive space ship, once you got it up to that speed wouldn't it take K^2 (squared) units of fuel to slow it down it again?
Say what? Where'd you get the idea that it takes more fuel to slow down than to speed up? Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, change in delta-v.
Napoleon was from Corsica. Not trying to knock the French fighting abilities or anything, my above joke being more of an attempt at absurdism than a poke at the French. However, Napoleon was French only by technicality, the island of Corsica having been transfered from Genoa to France the year before he was born.
But it accurately reflects what their attitudes was, and likely still is. They view people as pieces in their game. Which is well until people realise what is going on.
Hate to break it to ya, but that's all business has ever been. MS is just blatant about it, but they are hardly the most blatant. We, as an industry, just find it offensive because on the whole, we are a rather naive bunch.
No, we find it offensive because it's actually offensive. The fact that "that's all business has ever been," does not make it okay that this or any other business acts this way. As members of a civil society, we have a duty to uphold civility and decent behavior. When someone or some entity does something offensive, we shouldn't just throw up our hands in surrender, saying, "Well, that's just the way things are. Believing things should be otherwise is just naive." We should speak up.
Sure, no one has any right to not be offended. But no one has a right to be offensive and not hear about it. When any entity treats others like things instead of people, they should expect to be called out for that behavior.
Well, it was the French fighting the French, so I'm guessing the French surrendered. Which means the French won, which common sense tells us is impossible, so logically that means that rather than the French, it was actually the French who surrendered... Wait...
Okay, that's a good point. But the major characteristic of randomness is that it is, well, random. So any source of randomness will do in our simulation. We don't have to simulate anything quantum at all. We just add randomness, after all, the collapse of the quantum wave function can't be adding information to the model. If it is non-deterministic, if it is random, it can't be adding anything coherent to consciousness. We can quantify how much randomness the effect is adding and add precisely that much randomness to our model. Problem solved.
If the quantum effect is adding something coherent to consciousness, then it isn't random and it can be measured and simulated.
Even Adam Smith knew that, paradoxically, a free market needs regulation in order to remain free. Free market fanbois of all stripes forget that market forces can be used to manipulate the market in unfair ways that damage the efficient function of the market. They think that government power is the only kind of power that can mess up a market, which is just silly.
Re:Buying into a particular political philosophy
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
A lot of people become very atatched to the philosophy they've built. They get sentimental about it, then they start to forget to update it regularly, then they forget why it needs to be updated regularly, then they forget that their map isn't actually reality, then they start making their experiences fit their map instead of the other way around. And there's your other side.
the quantum wave function is deterministic. If you know the state of the wave, you know EXACTLY how the wave function evolves. You don't know how it will collapse, but that doesn't matter, because no matter how it collapses, the evolution of the wave function itself is deterministic. Whether reality works that way or not is certainly open to debate.
In any case, it doesn't matter. If consciousness is non-deterministic, we add in a random factor to our simulations. After all, non-deterministic means not determined by. It's not like the non deterministic part can be the hiding place of the soul or anything silly like that.
Because every single electrochemical and chemical reaction is subject to quantum mechanics, and so Heisenberg's uncertainly principle.
Do you even know what this means? The wave function is deterministic. Only the collapse is not. Is it determined that the sun will rise tomorrow? By any sane definition of the word, yes. The original poster was trying to making the strong argument that modeling human consciousness is impossible. Not only is that not proveable, you can't even prove that we are not now running on a simulation! We may be a ways away from quantum computing, but everything I hear from the field shows things progressing faster than expected. So even if consciousness requires quantum computing, that does not make it impossible.
I'm saying there are probably no quantum states to model, but if there are, quantum computing may let us model them. I thought Penrose was one of the ones arguing that we couldn't simulate the brain due to quantum effects? Didn't he originally present the argument you used?
And actually, you may be interested to learn that, yes, though we are an unnkown distance away from understanding consciousness, our understanding of the brain and various components of consciousness is growing by amazing leaps and bounds.
I never meant the government should make it. Only that without the monopoly granted by patent, there is no way for a company to recoup the cost of testing a drug for a new application. Therefore the government should subsidize the testing of potentially useful but unprofitable drugs such as this.
The concept of qualia is an intersting one, and the question of determinism in cognition is, as yet, unanswered. My friend thinks consciousness is a deterministic process, a view shared by many in his field. But we don't know, and we may never know.
We could develop a simulation of human consciousness that had no internal experience at all, but presented the appearanc of having one. People would download themselves and their friends would ask the download, "So how's it feel" The simulation would answer in some way that was just like the original, indicating an internal experience. But inside, no felt experience takes place. (A felt experience is a quale, for those who don't know. Qualia is the plural.)
As I understand it, determinism in quantum mechanics is a settled issue. The quantum wave function is deterministic. The collapse of said function is not. You may not be able to tell, instant to instant, where a particle is, but you know exactly how the quantum wave function will evolve.
In any case, indeterminism only applies at quantum scales. At macro scales, including the level at which neurons exist, statistics ensure that the indeterminism of the collapse will average out into the determinism of the wave function itself. There is little evidence for any kind of quantum effect in the brain.
Of course, we don't know anything for sure yet, which is why the original post is so silly. It was claiming that it was impossible to simulate consciousness. I'm just trying to point out why that is false and if I have overstated my case in the opposite direction, I apologize. No one knows if consciousness can be simulated or not.
Well put. We need information, not regulation. But without regulation, we must also have a fair and equitable justice system, to catch the inevitable errors that slip through the cracks. Doctors can be bribed. People can be lied to. Drugs can be advertised as pure when they aren't, and side effects blamed on anyone or anything else.
The free market never seems to work quite right where survival issues such as food, water, shelter or health are involved. Perhaps the idea that people will act in their rational self interest does not apply very well to irrationally emotional issues relating to survival.
This is an existing drug that has been used for other purposes for years. We know there are no major side effects. It isn't another thalidomide. We just need to know if it works against cancer. But it is such an old drug, it is no longer patented, so no one can make obscene amounts of money off of it. The US wouldn't be producing the drug, just paying for the research.
I never meant the government should manufacture it, but if it works, the government should foot the bill for testing it in this new capacity, and if this further testing shows the drug is promising, then license it to whichever American company wants to produce it.
The market would have failed far earlier without regulation. The free market system breaks down in the face of externalities, imbalanceof information, or natural monopoly. In this case, the issues are externalities and imbalance of information. The externalities are the potential harms caused by poorly tested drugs, and the imbalance of information is due to the fact that no average buyer will have nearly enough information to make an informed decision about what drug to take. Thus the need for government regulation.
The west is socialist! Look at all the tax breaks given to big business. What we have here in the good ol' USA is socialism for the rich. Show me a single drug company that hasn't benefited from federal research grants. That's socialism.
The ability for people to recognize heir own biases and irrationalities seems to be remarkably diminished when it comes to politics.
Remarkably diminished from what? Their usual sterling abilities in that regard? Oh yeah, that's people, all right. Remarkably able to confront their own irrationalities and biases. Yessir, every single one of us, paragons of introspection in every area except politics.
Well, the subhumans comment was, to me anyway, obviously hyperbole: the guy doesn't REALLY think they should be rounded up and put in camps or anythign. But the RIAA is definitely engaged in rent seeking behavior. If you think they aren't using their money and lobbying power to manipulate the entertainment industry, you haven't really looked at what they are doing. I would definitely call what they do artifical control of supply.
Your last conclusion is right on the money. Make whatever argument you like, but if you are just trying to cloak your selfishness in fancy rhetoric, most people can see right through that.
Well who hasn't destabilized a few third world economies? Bill Gates can't take a crap without destabilizing one somewhere.;-) But I didn't know Soros was a member of the Carlyle group or the CFR. That's enough to hang him in my book.
Jebus, man! How does Heisenberg enter into human consciousness? Can you show a quantum mechanical mechanism? Some people like Penrose think there has to be, but most people in the field (from covnersations I've had, I could be wrong) think there are NO quantum mechanical processes that play a part in consciousness.
However, even if there are such processes, they can be modelled. Ever hear of quantum computing?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you could apply some force to slowly accelerate a massive space ship, once you got it up to that speed wouldn't it take K^2 (squared) units of fuel to slow it down it again?
Say what? Where'd you get the idea that it takes more fuel to slow down than to speed up? Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, change in delta-v.
Napoleon was from Corsica. Not trying to knock the French fighting abilities or anything, my above joke being more of an attempt at absurdism than a poke at the French. However, Napoleon was French only by technicality, the island of Corsica having been transfered from Genoa to France the year before he was born.
No, we find it offensive because it's actually offensive. The fact that "that's all business has ever been," does not make it okay that this or any other business acts this way. As members of a civil society, we have a duty to uphold civility and decent behavior. When someone or some entity does something offensive, we shouldn't just throw up our hands in surrender, saying, "Well, that's just the way things are. Believing things should be otherwise is just naive." We should speak up.
Sure, no one has any right to not be offended. But no one has a right to be offensive and not hear about it. When any entity treats others like things instead of people, they should expect to be called out for that behavior.
Well, it was the French fighting the French, so I'm guessing the French surrendered. Which means the French won, which common sense tells us is impossible, so logically that means that rather than the French, it was actually the French who surrendered... Wait...
Okay, that's a good point. But the major characteristic of randomness is that it is, well, random. So any source of randomness will do in our simulation. We don't have to simulate anything quantum at all. We just add randomness, after all, the collapse of the quantum wave function can't be adding information to the model. If it is non-deterministic, if it is random, it can't be adding anything coherent to consciousness. We can quantify how much randomness the effect is adding and add precisely that much randomness to our model. Problem solved.
If the quantum effect is adding something coherent to consciousness, then it isn't random and it can be measured and simulated.
The collapse doesn't produce randomness. If it did, then the wave function itself would not be deterministic, but it is.
Wait, we're the French Front National? I thought we were the National French Front. Oh, that's him over there is it? Splitter!
Even Adam Smith knew that, paradoxically, a free market needs regulation in order to remain free. Free market fanbois of all stripes forget that market forces can be used to manipulate the market in unfair ways that damage the efficient function of the market. They think that government power is the only kind of power that can mess up a market, which is just silly.
A lot of people become very atatched to the philosophy they've built. They get sentimental about it, then they start to forget to update it regularly, then they forget why it needs to be updated regularly, then they forget that their map isn't actually reality, then they start making their experiences fit their map instead of the other way around. And there's your other side.
the quantum wave function is deterministic. If you know the state of the wave, you know EXACTLY how the wave function evolves. You don't know how it will collapse, but that doesn't matter, because no matter how it collapses, the evolution of the wave function itself is deterministic. Whether reality works that way or not is certainly open to debate.
In any case, it doesn't matter. If consciousness is non-deterministic, we add in a random factor to our simulations. After all, non-deterministic means not determined by. It's not like the non deterministic part can be the hiding place of the soul or anything silly like that.
Do you even know what this means? The wave function is deterministic. Only the collapse is not. Is it determined that the sun will rise tomorrow? By any sane definition of the word, yes. The original poster was trying to making the strong argument that modeling human consciousness is impossible. Not only is that not proveable, you can't even prove that we are not now running on a simulation! We may be a ways away from quantum computing, but everything I hear from the field shows things progressing faster than expected. So even if consciousness requires quantum computing, that does not make it impossible.
I'm saying there are probably no quantum states to model, but if there are, quantum computing may let us model them. I thought Penrose was one of the ones arguing that we couldn't simulate the brain due to quantum effects? Didn't he originally present the argument you used?
And actually, you may be interested to learn that, yes, though we are an unnkown distance away from understanding consciousness, our understanding of the brain and various components of consciousness is growing by amazing leaps and bounds.
I never meant the government should make it. Only that without the monopoly granted by patent, there is no way for a company to recoup the cost of testing a drug for a new application. Therefore the government should subsidize the testing of potentially useful but unprofitable drugs such as this.
The concept of qualia is an intersting one, and the question of determinism in cognition is, as yet, unanswered. My friend thinks consciousness is a deterministic process, a view shared by many in his field. But we don't know, and we may never know.
We could develop a simulation of human consciousness that had no internal experience at all, but presented the appearanc of having one. People would download themselves and their friends would ask the download, "So how's it feel" The simulation would answer in some way that was just like the original, indicating an internal experience. But inside, no felt experience takes place. (A felt experience is a quale, for those who don't know. Qualia is the plural.)
As I understand it, determinism in quantum mechanics is a settled issue. The quantum wave function is deterministic. The collapse of said function is not. You may not be able to tell, instant to instant, where a particle is, but you know exactly how the quantum wave function will evolve.
In any case, indeterminism only applies at quantum scales. At macro scales, including the level at which neurons exist, statistics ensure that the indeterminism of the collapse will average out into the determinism of the wave function itself. There is little evidence for any kind of quantum effect in the brain.
Of course, we don't know anything for sure yet, which is why the original post is so silly. It was claiming that it was impossible to simulate consciousness. I'm just trying to point out why that is false and if I have overstated my case in the opposite direction, I apologize. No one knows if consciousness can be simulated or not.
Well put. We need information, not regulation. But without regulation, we must also have a fair and equitable justice system, to catch the inevitable errors that slip through the cracks. Doctors can be bribed. People can be lied to. Drugs can be advertised as pure when they aren't, and side effects blamed on anyone or anything else.
The free market never seems to work quite right where survival issues such as food, water, shelter or health are involved. Perhaps the idea that people will act in their rational self interest does not apply very well to irrationally emotional issues relating to survival.
This is an existing drug that has been used for other purposes for years. We know there are no major side effects. It isn't another thalidomide. We just need to know if it works against cancer. But it is such an old drug, it is no longer patented, so no one can make obscene amounts of money off of it. The US wouldn't be producing the drug, just paying for the research.
I never meant the government should manufacture it, but if it works, the government should foot the bill for testing it in this new capacity, and if this further testing shows the drug is promising, then license it to whichever American company wants to produce it.
The market would have failed far earlier without regulation. The free market system breaks down in the face of externalities, imbalanceof information, or natural monopoly. In this case, the issues are externalities and imbalance of information. The externalities are the potential harms caused by poorly tested drugs, and the imbalance of information is due to the fact that no average buyer will have nearly enough information to make an informed decision about what drug to take. Thus the need for government regulation.
The west is socialist! Look at all the tax breaks given to big business. What we have here in the good ol' USA is socialism for the rich. Show me a single drug company that hasn't benefited from federal research grants. That's socialism.
When the free market fails, as in this case, why not let government do it? Most major scientific breakthroughs have come from government funding.
Remarkably diminished from what? Their usual sterling abilities in that regard? Oh yeah, that's people, all right. Remarkably able to confront their own irrationalities and biases. Yessir, every single one of us, paragons of introspection in every area except politics.
Well, the subhumans comment was, to me anyway, obviously hyperbole: the guy doesn't REALLY think they should be rounded up and put in camps or anythign. But the RIAA is definitely engaged in rent seeking behavior. If you think they aren't using their money and lobbying power to manipulate the entertainment industry, you haven't really looked at what they are doing. I would definitely call what they do artifical control of supply.
Your last conclusion is right on the money. Make whatever argument you like, but if you are just trying to cloak your selfishness in fancy rhetoric, most people can see right through that.
Well who hasn't destabilized a few third world economies? Bill Gates can't take a crap without destabilizing one somewhere. ;-) But I didn't know Soros was a member of the Carlyle group or the CFR. That's enough to hang him in my book.
Basically all of them have said at some point in their lives "just one little drinkypoo".
Mom? Is that you?
Jebus, man! How does Heisenberg enter into human consciousness? Can you show a quantum mechanical mechanism? Some people like Penrose think there has to be, but most people in the field (from covnersations I've had, I could be wrong) think there are NO quantum mechanical processes that play a part in consciousness.
However, even if there are such processes, they can be modelled. Ever hear of quantum computing?