Are you suggesting this country was not formed on religious ideals? What are you basing this on? Have you read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or know anything about the founders of this country?
This is terrible news. The Constitution gives us freedom of God, not freedom from God. Our country is very much based on religious ideals and principles. This movement can only lead to gutting the very heart of our country out. If people do not like the religious ideals that this country is based on are free to leave, and I would encourage them to do so.
I am curious... why are there so many issues and difficulties with "reverse-engineering" the behavior of receptors? It seems that the behavior of a neuron either firing, or not firing is binary and analagous to computers. But the receptors are not as straightforward as far as explaining their behavior.
I don't expect you to answer in detail... a link or reference would be excellent.
Given an event's probability, how do you suggest you pick the outcome? Using a random number generator? Random number generators produce pseudo-random numbers; they are not truly random. The calculation will not be legitimate.
Penrose did suggest the human brain could be emulated very closely, given the computational power and a sophisticated enough algorithm (I guess we could call it a pseudo-brain). However, it could never be copied exactly, which is a requirement for Kurtzweil.
I agree. It is very difficult to make comparisons to the brain and computer because they are fundamentally different. How do you compare intelligence between the two? You can't.
Computer intelligence is based on the ability to process information and make calculations. Human intelligence is largely based on pattern recognition.
That which is very easy for a computer (multiplying 385489395 and 28499292 for example) is very difficult for a human. A computer can accomplish this very quickly using a very simple algorithm.
On the other hand, that which is very easy for humans, is very difficult for computers. A person's ability to recognize what a child's drawing represents does not require concious thought and is very simple for that person. A computer program that could do this on a regular basis would truly be impressive.
What is your point? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Are you still suggesting that a central theme in Communism is NOT the elimination of private property? If so, your argument is not at all clear.
The operative phrase in your carefully picked quote is "In this sense...".
Yes, this could also mean "looking at it from this perspective", which does not invalidate the statement. It is just one way of looking at it.
"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeoise property. But modern bourgoise private property is the final and complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antogonisims, of the exploitation of the many by the few."
This is a statement indicating the emphasis is the elimination of private property for the bourgeois. This is consistent with my point. In industrial Europe, the bourgeois were the merchant class that owned the factories and means of production. It was the goal of Communism to abolish their wealth so that they could no longer capitalize off of it.
"Do you mean the property of the petty artisan or the small peasant, a form of property that preceeded the bourgoise form? There is no need to abolish that, the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."
This is a sentimental statement that is meant to appeal to the workers (or proletarians). After all, the Manifesto is a call to them for revolt. Marx conceded the workers had no property from which they could capitalize. Please explain how it is relevant.
I remind you the topic of our debate is whether "giving stuff away for free" is communistic. I have challenged you on this statement, and you have failed to provide any reasonable evidence for it. You have replied that it is redistribution of wealth, and therefore, communistic. This is absurd. The "distribution of wealth" is a useless term that can be so broadly defined that it includes things such as taxation, bank robberies and the general transference of goods and services through commercial means.
I would assert, rather, that Communism's result is that it cripples a person's ability to give something away for free. How can I meaningfully give wealth to another person, if the "system" already gives to each of us "according to our needs"? In a Capitalist system, my potential and capacity for giving to others is much more significant. The act of giving to others is much more compatible in a Capitalist society than a Communist one.
I always found Kurzweil's predictions to be over the top. It is my impression that many of his predictions rely on the premise that the human brain functions in a deterministic way. We know far too little about the brain to make this assertion.
I personally believe it does not. Roger Penrose, a British mathematician has attempted to prove that a deterministic process cannot copy the human brain. He uses the uncertain nature of quantum mechanics as the basis of his proof. It is difficult to swallow, and frankly, beyond my understanding of quantum, but interesting none the less.
I like to believe the brain cannot be copied by a computer simply because I am attached to the belief that our human minds have something else to them besides a bunch of atoms banging around.
The sharing of wealth and intellectual property is going to be ideal in ANY economic system -- not just communism. The thing that separates communism from other economic systems is the abolishment of private property. That has nothing to do with open source software.
I am a big advocate for open source software (and I am currently attempting to write some), yet I believe communism is evil. Where am I wrong?
I am all for open source software and church fund raisers. They are both good. Communism is evil. Just because I write open source software, does not make me a supporter of Communism.
You are right.. it is a system where the workers own the means of production. It is also a system where there is no private property. The two statements are not exclusive.
From Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, Proletarians and Communists chapter:
In this sense the theory of communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
If you are going to be a Communism apologist, you should learn a little more about it.
Holy shit! It took Marx 100 pages or so to set it down, if he'd only have known it could have been distilled into one sentance!
From Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, Proletarians and Communists chapter (I have a copy):
In this sense the theory of communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
It does actually make me feel better, in an odd sort of way, that even though there is a frighteningly large number of supporters for Communism and Socialism, a large percentage of them don't even understand what they support.
Are you an advocate of communism? If so, why on Earth would you believe it is moral?
Saying communism is simply removal of private property is as ignorant...
Webster's definition of communism:
1 a : a theory advocating the elimination of private property
Redistribution of wealth is not a characteristic that is unique to communism. Whether it is voluntary is the whole point! It makes all the difference in whether wealth distribution is moral or immoral. If it is voluntary, then it is moral (on the part giving away his wealth). If it is not, it is immortal (on the part of those that force the redistribution).
I have a big problem when people compare moral actions as being equivalent to immoral ones. If you believe that a communistic society would allow you to voluntarily give your property to others, you are fooling yourself.
I'm sorry, but I have to dive into this argument. I can't help myself. I can't, I can't, I really can't!
Socialism is not only immoral, but it is impractical as well. Socialists tend to believe that there is a constant sum of wealth available in a society. They believe this sum of wealth is unfairly distributed, with the bulk of it going to the unscrupulous and greedy.
The truth of the matter is that wealth is created through hard work. The sum of wealth in a society is proportional to the productivity of its citizens and is not constant. Without the productivity of an ambitious population, the sum of wealth in society will rocket downward. To believe that people will be as productive in a pure socialistic community as they would be in a capitalistic society through some sort of sense of altruism is outright foolish.
I believe it is in the "interests of humans" to have more wealth.
The subtle difference is that socialism and communism imply that collective ownership is mandatory, not optional.
I'm all for people dedicating their hard work to the community. It is very charitable to do so. However, to associate that pursuit with a wicked concept like communism is distasteful to me.
"Giving stuff away for free is communistic" is a gross misintepretation of the communistic philosophy. This type of idiotic thinking is why some people think communism is a good idea.
Communism is an economic/political system that removes any private property. It is NOT a generailzation for anything that benefits the community as a whole.
Communism is a system where there is no private property... all property is belongs to the community as a whole. A person does not give their property to the community voluntarily -- it is required.
The "voluntary" part is the key word. Charity is far from synonymous with communism. In order for an act to be charitable, it must be done voluntarily.
I disagree that open source software is, in itself, analogous to communism. If all software was REQUIRED to be open source, that would be communistic.
Its like saying any time you give something away for free, you are exercising communism. It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.
I'm curious as to why you would label me as a "/.er" but preclude yourself from that label.
You admit you do not know your "QM", yet you dismiss any relevance it may have to Cognitive Science. I get the feeling that you do not intend on reviewing the Penrose books I provided links for and would like me to present the argument. I will not be able to argue Penrose's view point as well as he can obviously, but I will attempt to give you the general idea.
There is evidence that human intelligence has accomplished tasks that are not possible by deterministic systems, such as a computer. The most notable of these tasks is proving that a specific set of tiles can cover an infinite plane, but never with any symmetry. These non-periodic tiling patterns are often referred to as Penrose Tiles. Penrose has proven the tiles will cover an infinite surface without a repeating pattern, yet a computer could never prove this with certainty (unless maybe you hooked up a mic to it...). For a detailed description of the proof, I will have to refer you to Penrose's books (I'm sure it is all with in your conceptual grasp, as you are used to "hard math & science" in your graduate studies). It is all fantastic evidence of the prowess the human mind is capable of that escapes the potential of a computer, no matter how big or fast it is.
Quantum may not be the reason behind this non-determinism, but it seems like the most likely explanation. Other explanations tend towards meta-physical or spirtual type things, which are often frowned upon in the scientific community.
I am not familiar with "Connectionist", "Perceptron", "Support Vector Machines", "Graphplan", nor "XFRM". I'm sure other "/.ers" that are bored enough to peruse our discussion don't know what they are either. Please explain what their respective domains are. I certainly believe that computers can out perform humans in some intelligence tests, but pattern recognition is rarely one of them.
Re:OK, Jon, you *obviously* didn't read Kurzwiel
on
A.I. and the Future
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, I'm not sure where the 'quantum bit in the vicinity of your head' hypothesis came from, but if that is the basis of your understanding of quantum physics, I can see why you do not think the theory holds any water. No, I am not prepared to defend that hypothesis.
Even if you apply a non-deterministic input to a computer program (such as your microphone), the computer process itself is still deterministic. Given the same initial conditions, it will always come to the same result. Just because the initial conditions are not repeatable does not mean the process is no longer deterministic.
Also, modern AI algorithms don't really come close to approximating human pattern recognition abilities. There are certainly vast improvements that can be made and I am not sure why you would make the assertion that they "work fine".
Re:OK, Jon, you *obviously* didn't read Kurzwiel
on
A.I. and the Future
·
· Score: 1
Roger Penrose (a fairly reputable English mathematician) has a theory that the human mind is non-deterministic because of quantum physics. He has several good books worth reading:
Re:OK, Jon, you *obviously* didn't read Kurzwiel
on
A.I. and the Future
·
· Score: 1
I have trouble buying into Kurzwiel's vision. In order for his ideas to be possible, one of the two things must be true:
1. An assumption that human intelligence is a deterministic system. I strongly disagree with this from a philisophical perspective.
2. Computers will no longer be deterministic, which really means they are not computers anymore (or a turing machine).
Much of his crediability seems to come from his previous predictions of AI advancements from years ago, such as the Deep Blue victory in chess. Chess, however, is at its root is purely deterministic with a fairly limit set of possible outcomes and a problem set where there are no hidden preconditions. This is a far cry from the types of intelligences he presumes possible in Age of Spiritual Machines.
Computer AIs will never be able to compete with an experienced human opponent in today's strategy games, unless the AI is allowed to cheat. This is because current computer strategy games have nearly an infinate set of possible outcomes for a given state because of terrain/map features and the absence of information about unexplored territory and what other players are doing. These games are not like chess, which has a fairly limited set of possible outcomes and there is no absence of information about the current game state.
CPU processing power will not help this situation. Brute force approaches will add little improvement to the AI. The quality of the AI is derived from the quality of the algorithms used.
Good idea on creating a plugin-AI for a game... its true that a game becomes stale as soon as the AI becomes stale.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting this country was not formed on religious ideals? What are you basing this on? Have you read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or know anything about the founders of this country?
This is terrible news. The Constitution gives us freedom of God, not freedom from God. Our country is very much based on religious ideals and principles. This movement can only lead to gutting the very heart of our country out. If people do not like the religious ideals that this country is based on are free to leave, and I would encourage them to do so.
I am curious ... why are there so many issues and difficulties with "reverse-engineering" the behavior of receptors? It seems that the behavior of a neuron either firing, or not firing is binary and analagous to computers. But the receptors are not as straightforward as far as explaining their behavior.
I don't expect you to answer in detail... a link or reference would be excellent.
Given an event's probability, how do you suggest you pick the outcome? Using a random number generator? Random number generators produce pseudo-random numbers; they are not truly random. The calculation will not be legitimate.
Penrose did suggest the human brain could be emulated very closely, given the computational power and a sophisticated enough algorithm (I guess we could call it a pseudo-brain). However, it could never be copied exactly, which is a requirement for Kurtzweil.
Just out of curiousity, how do you "compute" a system that has uncertainty? There seems to be a contradiction here
I agree. It is very difficult to make comparisons to the brain and computer because they are fundamentally different. How do you compare intelligence between the two? You can't.
Computer intelligence is based on the ability to process information and make calculations. Human intelligence is largely based on pattern recognition.
That which is very easy for a computer (multiplying 385489395 and 28499292 for example) is very difficult for a human. A computer can accomplish this very quickly using a very simple algorithm.
On the other hand, that which is very easy for humans, is very difficult for computers. A person's ability to recognize what a child's drawing represents does not require concious thought and is very simple for that person. A computer program that could do this on a regular basis would truly be impressive.
I remind you the topic of our debate is whether "giving stuff away for free" is communistic. I have challenged you on this statement, and you have failed to provide any reasonable evidence for it. You have replied that it is redistribution of wealth, and therefore, communistic. This is absurd. The "distribution of wealth" is a useless term that can be so broadly defined that it includes things such as taxation, bank robberies and the general transference of goods and services through commercial means.
I would assert, rather, that Communism's result is that it cripples a person's ability to give something away for free. How can I meaningfully give wealth to another person, if the "system" already gives to each of us "according to our needs"? In a Capitalist system, my potential and capacity for giving to others is much more significant. The act of giving to others is much more compatible in a Capitalist society than a Communist one.
I always found Kurzweil's predictions to be over the top. It is my impression that many of his predictions rely on the premise that the human brain functions in a deterministic way. We know far too little about the brain to make this assertion.
I personally believe it does not. Roger Penrose, a British mathematician has attempted to prove that a deterministic process cannot copy the human brain. He uses the uncertain nature of quantum mechanics as the basis of his proof. It is difficult to swallow, and frankly, beyond my understanding of quantum, but interesting none the less.
I like to believe the brain cannot be copied by a computer simply because I am attached to the belief that our human minds have something else to them besides a bunch of atoms banging around.
I know what apologist means. It is someone who supports, explains, or is an advocate for something. I apologize if I mislabeled you ... ;)
The sharing of wealth and intellectual property is going to be ideal in ANY economic system -- not just communism. The thing that separates communism from other economic systems is the abolishment of private property. That has nothing to do with open source software.
I am a big advocate for open source software (and I am currently attempting to write some), yet I believe communism is evil. Where am I wrong?
I'm not clear where on the hypocrisy is
I am all for open source software and church fund raisers. They are both good. Communism is evil. Just because I write open source software, does not make me a supporter of Communism.
From Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, Proletarians and Communists chapter:
If you are going to be a Communism apologist, you should learn a little more about it.From Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, Proletarians and Communists chapter (I have a copy): It does actually make me feel better, in an odd sort of way, that even though there is a frighteningly large number of supporters for Communism and Socialism, a large percentage of them don't even understand what they support.
Are you an advocate of communism? If so, why on Earth would you believe it is moral?
1 a : a theory advocating the elimination of private property
Redistribution of wealth is not a characteristic that is unique to communism. Whether it is voluntary is the whole point! It makes all the difference in whether wealth distribution is moral or immoral. If it is voluntary, then it is moral (on the part giving away his wealth). If it is not, it is immortal (on the part of those that force the redistribution).
I have a big problem when people compare moral actions as being equivalent to immoral ones. If you believe that a communistic society would allow you to voluntarily give your property to others, you are fooling yourself.
I'm sorry, but I have to dive into this argument. I can't help myself. I can't, I can't, I really can't!
Socialism is not only immoral, but it is impractical as well. Socialists tend to believe that there is a constant sum of wealth available in a society. They believe this sum of wealth is unfairly distributed, with the bulk of it going to the unscrupulous and greedy.
The truth of the matter is that wealth is created through hard work. The sum of wealth in a society is proportional to the productivity of its citizens and is not constant. Without the productivity of an ambitious population, the sum of wealth in society will rocket downward. To believe that people will be as productive in a pure socialistic community as they would be in a capitalistic society through some sort of sense of altruism is outright foolish.
I believe it is in the "interests of humans" to have more wealth.
The subtle difference is that socialism and communism imply that collective ownership is mandatory, not optional.
I'm all for people dedicating their hard work to the community. It is very charitable to do so. However, to associate that pursuit with a wicked concept like communism is distasteful to me.
"Giving stuff away for free is communistic" is a gross misintepretation of the communistic philosophy. This type of idiotic thinking is why some people think communism is a good idea.
Communism is an economic/political system that removes any private property. It is NOT a generailzation for anything that benefits the community as a whole.
Communism is a system where there is no private property ... all property is belongs to the community as a whole. A person does not give their property to the community voluntarily -- it is required.
The "voluntary" part is the key word. Charity is far from synonymous with communism. In order for an act to be charitable, it must be done voluntarily.
I disagree that open source software is, in itself, analogous to communism. If all software was REQUIRED to be open source, that would be communistic.
Its like saying any time you give something away for free, you are exercising communism. It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.
I'm curious as to why you would label me as a "/.er" but preclude yourself from that label.
You admit you do not know your "QM", yet you dismiss any relevance it may have to Cognitive Science. I get the feeling that you do not intend on reviewing the Penrose books I provided links for and would like me to present the argument. I will not be able to argue Penrose's view point as well as he can obviously, but I will attempt to give you the general idea.
There is evidence that human intelligence has accomplished tasks that are not possible by deterministic systems, such as a computer. The most notable of these tasks is proving that a specific set of tiles can cover an infinite plane, but never with any symmetry. These non-periodic tiling patterns are often referred to as Penrose Tiles . Penrose has proven the tiles will cover an infinite surface without a repeating pattern, yet a computer could never prove this with certainty (unless maybe you hooked up a mic to it...). For a detailed description of the proof, I will have to refer you to Penrose's books (I'm sure it is all with in your conceptual grasp, as you are used to "hard math & science" in your graduate studies). It is all fantastic evidence of the prowess the human mind is capable of that escapes the potential of a computer, no matter how big or fast it is.
Quantum may not be the reason behind this non-determinism, but it seems like the most likely explanation. Other explanations tend towards meta-physical or spirtual type things, which are often frowned upon in the scientific community.
I am not familiar with "Connectionist", "Perceptron", "Support Vector Machines", "Graphplan", nor "XFRM". I'm sure other "/.ers" that are bored enough to peruse our discussion don't know what they are either. Please explain what their respective domains are. I certainly believe that computers can out perform humans in some intelligence tests, but pattern recognition is rarely one of them.
Hmm, I'm not sure where the 'quantum bit in the vicinity of your head' hypothesis came from, but if that is the basis of your understanding of quantum physics, I can see why you do not think the theory holds any water. No, I am not prepared to defend that hypothesis.
Even if you apply a non-deterministic input to a computer program (such as your microphone), the computer process itself is still deterministic. Given the same initial conditions, it will always come to the same result. Just because the initial conditions are not repeatable does not mean the process is no longer deterministic.
Also, modern AI algorithms don't really come close to approximating human pattern recognition abilities. There are certainly vast improvements that can be made and I am not sure why you would make the assertion that they "work fine".
Roger Penrose (a fairly reputable English mathematician) has a theory that the human mind is non-deterministic because of quantum physics. He has several good books worth reading:
The Emperor's New Mind
Shadows of the Mind
I have trouble buying into Kurzwiel's vision. In order for his ideas to be possible, one of the two things must be true:
1. An assumption that human intelligence is a deterministic system. I strongly disagree with this from a philisophical perspective.
2. Computers will no longer be deterministic, which really means they are not computers anymore (or a turing machine).
Much of his crediability seems to come from his previous predictions of AI advancements from years ago, such as the Deep Blue victory in chess. Chess, however, is at its root is purely deterministic with a fairly limit set of possible outcomes and a problem set where there are no hidden preconditions. This is a far cry from the types of intelligences he presumes possible in Age of Spiritual Machines.
Does the XML Schema replace the need for a DTD? Can you do all of the validation with an XML Schema that you can with a DTD?
....
Last thing I want is to have to write both a DTD and an XML Schema for my documents
Computer AIs will never be able to compete with an experienced human opponent in today's strategy games, unless the AI is allowed to cheat. This is because current computer strategy games have nearly an infinate set of possible outcomes for a given state because of terrain/map features and the absence of information about unexplored territory and what other players are doing. These games are not like chess, which has a fairly limited set of possible outcomes and there is no absence of information about the current game state.
... its true that a game becomes stale as soon as the AI becomes stale.
CPU processing power will not help this situation. Brute force approaches will add little improvement to the AI. The quality of the AI is derived from the quality of the algorithms used.
Good idea on creating a plugin-AI for a game