Tellingly, the inventor of the IQ test, when asked what intelligence was, responded "it's what my test measures".
I haven't encountered anyone who's ever claimed that the accumulation and sorting of data is a sufficient condition of intelligence, including my AI professors. So why are you characterising their position in such a way? You sound like you've already defined intelligence as something a machine can never have, when what we're learning is that "machine learning"- ie, what we're programming machines to do, appears to be exactly the process that biological systems undergo, removing any justification we had for claiming otherwise.
It would probably not be too far to say life is impossible without some kind of DNA-analogue. What does the term even mean if you aren't talking about self-replicating information?
Regardless, we should remain neutral on a claim until there is evidence for it. In other words, while we might be ultimately incorrect, we would be justified, currently, based on our observations, in claiming that a DNA-analogue is a necessary condition of life. And there can certainly be no grounds for claiming, given our current knowledge, that life without DNA is possible.
I suppose I could have been a little clearer. I meant that the mind appears to be identical with the brain, and the brain appears to be identical to a neural network, albeit a neural network bathed in neurotransmitters. As for a definition of mind, you can create a set out of any or all of the following, as your prejudices allow: humans, animals, higher animals. It's not important, since the results of the experiments hold across the board.
Which experiments? As an easy example, take experiments on humans: disable or remove a part of the brain, and we lose the functionality associated with that part. Re-enable that part and functionality returns. Results like that clearly demonstrate that no matter what unfalsifiable hypothesis you choose to believe regarding consciousness being some substrate-independant magical energy, it's at least necessarily the result of the operation of the brain.
Now your part: which "problematic things" that prevent the brain/mind being identical to a neural network are you talking about? References please, or did you weaken your statement so much by adding the "ultra-simplistic" stipulation that you're guaranteed to by right (and meaningless)- like the Discovery Institute when they use the phrase "Darwinian Natural Selection cannot account for the observed biodiversity".
I'm curious why you think a mind is necessarily a neural network.
Because every mind we've ever encountered, through every test we've ever administered, in the history of the human race, has been identical with a neural network, as far as we can tell.
and what the fuck do you mean "most efficient"? Do you mean space or time complexity, or readable and maintainable? Takes the smallest space on disk? Fewest cpu instructions? Questions like that piss me off. Efficient is relative.
It's really simple, if I say no-one should have guns, but keep a gun until some disarmament time when no-one has guns, I'm not being hypocritical at all. I'm being smart.
Women should have the right to walk the back alleys naked without fear of getting raped, but until there are no more rapists, it'd be a little silly for them to do so, and not at all hypocritical for them to say they should have that right while not carrying out that action.
Deer, or more precisely, stags, have horns so they can have their tremendous mating battles. Pachycephalosaurus had half of its skull hard bone, because they liked to smash their heads together. If you punch someone in the face, you'll be lucky if you don't break something in your hand. It's quite clear that hands did not evolve for punching. If they did, they'd be made of something very, very hard.
If you believe in a god that's indistinguishable from the workings of the natural universe, that's your fetish. We're talking about young earth creationists who believe both of the following propositions: 1. The universe is 6-10 thousand years old. 2. The very same equations that we use to build rockets, skyscrapers, and computers suddenly break down when we use them to determine the age of the universe
Something has come out in recent years. The last pope officially recognised the theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biodiversity we observe in nature. Did you also know you're now allowed to have recreational sex within a marriage, and also use a condom for the purpose of preventing the transmission of HIV? Talk about being dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century. No word yet on how it's bad to rape little boys, but I'm sure they're working on it.
The limits exist because it's widely accepted that it's impossible to keep all vermin out of food stocks. The limits are allowed to remain because it's widely accepted that a certain amount of insect parts being ingested is not unhealthy (indeed, in many parts of the world, insects are main courses). Why induce market forces on elements which simply don't matter?
Your argument fails for two reasons: firstly, you assume that the release of this information equates to perfect information- it doesn't. For people to have perfect information, they'd also need to be made aware of all the science behind GMO. Secondly, and this is the killer, it's based on the assumption that people are rational agents, when we know they simply aren't.
Let them label it, and let people make their own decisions.
Do you let a child make their own decisions about whether it's safe to cross the road? Do you let people make their own decisions about whether to drink and drive? Your worldview is harmful. We do not let people make decisions when they are not qualified to do so, and in the case of tricky science and statistics, the general populous is unqualified to do so.
In an ideal world you'd be right. Our world is far from ideal. Have you ever known the general public to be swayed by the facts, instead of fearmongering public speakers? Labelling foods as GMO would harm the product, in spite of its safety.
As and aside, you'd be surprised how much food you eat is already GMO.
Hell, If I was at all serious, I wouldn't be talking - that's called operational security, and is also a concept to which this marine was probably exposed.
I just want to point out that you are assuming all marines are at least as smart as you.
You have all your work still in front of you, if you plan on showing that coveting is the same as possessing. Meanwhile, instead of doing the required mental gymnastics to make the words fit your desired meaning, let's just all admit that the 10 commandments are pretty shitty. They don't even cover being nice to children.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you guys please democratise that place soon? Wankers with nukes make me nervous.
When society as a whole rejects a notion, that's not called censorship, that's called the exercise of conscience.
Linking biology to cryptography will just encourage criminals to either cut off my hand, or keep me alive just long enough to steal all my money.
technocratic.
Could you provide an example, please?
I haven't encountered anyone who's ever claimed that the accumulation and sorting of data is a sufficient condition of intelligence, including my AI professors. So why are you characterising their position in such a way? You sound like you've already defined intelligence as something a machine can never have, when what we're learning is that "machine learning"- ie, what we're programming machines to do, appears to be exactly the process that biological systems undergo, removing any justification we had for claiming otherwise.
Regardless, we should remain neutral on a claim until there is evidence for it. In other words, while we might be ultimately incorrect, we would be justified, currently, based on our observations, in claiming that a DNA-analogue is a necessary condition of life. And there can certainly be no grounds for claiming, given our current knowledge, that life without DNA is possible.
Which experiments? As an easy example, take experiments on humans: disable or remove a part of the brain, and we lose the functionality associated with that part. Re-enable that part and functionality returns. Results like that clearly demonstrate that no matter what unfalsifiable hypothesis you choose to believe regarding consciousness being some substrate-independant magical energy, it's at least necessarily the result of the operation of the brain.
Now your part: which "problematic things" that prevent the brain/mind being identical to a neural network are you talking about? References please, or did you weaken your statement so much by adding the "ultra-simplistic" stipulation that you're guaranteed to by right (and meaningless)- like the Discovery Institute when they use the phrase "Darwinian Natural Selection cannot account for the observed biodiversity".
Interestingly enough you make no counter-argument whatsoever. What is experience if not an accumulation and sorting of raw data?
I'm curious why you think a mind is necessarily a neural network.
Because every mind we've ever encountered, through every test we've ever administered, in the history of the human race, has been identical with a neural network, as far as we can tell.
That's an interesting assertion, considering that we were using the MR primality test for 30 years.
and what the fuck do you mean "most efficient"? Do you mean space or time complexity, or readable and maintainable? Takes the smallest space on disk? Fewest cpu instructions? Questions like that piss me off. Efficient is relative.
It's really simple, if I say no-one should have guns, but keep a gun until some disarmament time when no-one has guns, I'm not being hypocritical at all. I'm being smart. Women should have the right to walk the back alleys naked without fear of getting raped, but until there are no more rapists, it'd be a little silly for them to do so, and not at all hypocritical for them to say they should have that right while not carrying out that action.
Deer, or more precisely, stags, have horns so they can have their tremendous mating battles. Pachycephalosaurus had half of its skull hard bone, because they liked to smash their heads together. If you punch someone in the face, you'll be lucky if you don't break something in your hand. It's quite clear that hands did not evolve for punching. If they did, they'd be made of something very, very hard.
If you believe in a god that's indistinguishable from the workings of the natural universe, that's your fetish. We're talking about young earth creationists who believe both of the following propositions: 1. The universe is 6-10 thousand years old. 2. The very same equations that we use to build rockets, skyscrapers, and computers suddenly break down when we use them to determine the age of the universe
Something has come out in recent years. The last pope officially recognised the theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biodiversity we observe in nature. Did you also know you're now allowed to have recreational sex within a marriage, and also use a condom for the purpose of preventing the transmission of HIV? Talk about being dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century. No word yet on how it's bad to rape little boys, but I'm sure they're working on it.
The limits exist because it's widely accepted that it's impossible to keep all vermin out of food stocks. The limits are allowed to remain because it's widely accepted that a certain amount of insect parts being ingested is not unhealthy (indeed, in many parts of the world, insects are main courses). Why induce market forces on elements which simply don't matter?
You're right, let's put the average number of insect and mouse parts per loaf on every loaf of bread sold! Perfect information!
You're right. Let's make bread producers label their bread so we know exactly how much cockroach is in each loaf.
Your argument fails for two reasons: firstly, you assume that the release of this information equates to perfect information- it doesn't. For people to have perfect information, they'd also need to be made aware of all the science behind GMO. Secondly, and this is the killer, it's based on the assumption that people are rational agents, when we know they simply aren't.
Let them label it, and let people make their own decisions.
Do you let a child make their own decisions about whether it's safe to cross the road? Do you let people make their own decisions about whether to drink and drive? Your worldview is harmful. We do not let people make decisions when they are not qualified to do so, and in the case of tricky science and statistics, the general populous is unqualified to do so.
WHOOSH
In an ideal world you'd be right. Our world is far from ideal. Have you ever known the general public to be swayed by the facts, instead of fearmongering public speakers? Labelling foods as GMO would harm the product, in spite of its safety. As and aside, you'd be surprised how much food you eat is already GMO.
Hell, If I was at all serious, I wouldn't be talking - that's called operational security, and is also a concept to which this marine was probably exposed.
I just want to point out that you are assuming all marines are at least as smart as you.
You have all your work still in front of you, if you plan on showing that coveting is the same as possessing. Meanwhile, instead of doing the required mental gymnastics to make the words fit your desired meaning, let's just all admit that the 10 commandments are pretty shitty. They don't even cover being nice to children.