If I remember correctly, Aerosmith was being charged around 500K to record an album -- so they put together a 100K studio in one of their houses and produced their stuff on their own. It worked fine.
The text makes it sound like: I visit geocities.com/~me/ and when I hit 'back' button on any normal browser it'll take me back one index page to geocities.com/ -- even if I've never been there. We all know this is not how it works.
It also makes it seem like the new idea is what we've already got. You've got to think a while before you get past the writing and it clicks.
Problem with current: I visit geocities.com/~me/ and click on 'About me', then hit 'back.' Now, I click on the slashdot link. No amount of back or forward action will get me 'About me' again.
New: What's different is when you click 'forward' in the new method, it's a tree -- there are two choices now. Which is default? I don't know. They only explain that the pull-down menu will be a tree.
Well, at least somehow, I'll get to 'About me' without having to click links and find it again.
I remember a hearing about a case like this, where a girl who underwent hypnosis "remembered" she was raped by her father and had given birth. Physical examination showed she not only had never given birth, but was still a virgin.
... you can never really prove that a statement is true by empirical evidence, because you may always find some case later in which the statement is false.So by this reasoning, you can't ever prove that fo is not bar, because you might somehow later find a case in which the fo is bar...."so by this reasoning"? That reasoning doesn't apply. That's the whole point!
If you say all sheep are white, and you find a white one, nothing has been proven. Admitted.
If you say all sheep are white, and you find a black one, you have proven the statement wrong.
How can any new evidence alter that falsifacation? Did you observe the sheep wrong, so it's really not black?
"Nevertheless, it *would* be possible to navigate the pages...with the pen you use to do the crosswords."... "Brushing you finger (like mouse gestures) could also turn the pages and do suff."</I>
I don't think you get what "you have to give the user a way to navigate all those pages" is about. How do you get it to show a <B>web</B> page that isn't listed or linked to? If you can't, then what's the point? Otherwise it's just a newspaper where you can hit "more." -- useless.
Actually, as I understand it, that the fossil record shows progress over time is what is considered a fact. Explaining _why_ this is, is the part that gets so much debate (excluding, of course, the rabid fundies who deny the fossil record).
It's like that there is a "fact" of gravity that we all see, but each theory only gets us a little closer. The fundies don't realize (metaphorically) that if newtonian gravity isn't perfect, that doesn't make gravity go away.
Are evolutionary theories changed since darwin? Yes. Have they still got problems? Yes. Does that mean evolution doesn't exist? No. That just be confusing the "theory" of an event with the existance of the event....as I understand it.
Because if something were to really go faster than light in every way, it would have to go back in time.
Re:One of my favourite quotes...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
"guidance from God"
Many (or most?) of our founders (and almost all of the big ones I think) were deists, not revelatory theists. A small point, but true. I think the founders would want us to use our own judgement to find our way.
The point is that, although genetics are obviously important, there seems to be more to a human being than just his genetic code and experiences. For lack of a better word, I will call that his "soul."
Or differing nutrient and hormonal exposure when they shared the womb...
Penrose has based his idea on several flawed arguments:
1) Humans can do more than computers
He tries to use Godel's incompleteness theorem to show that if a mathematicians mind were reduced to a formal system, it would have to encapsulate his mind, everything he knows and everything he CAN know. He then tries to show that this wouldn't work because of Godel.
This argument doesn't work. It only proves that if human reasoning is computable, then it must either be unsound, or it must be impossible for us to know both what our own reasoning powers are and to also know that they are sound. The idea of unsoundess to human reasoning has some basis in fact IMHO.
2) Long-range quantum interactions can exist in the brain environment
These quantum effects he theorizes take place in the brain are some of the most fragile things in the universe and the brain is not a good place for them. He does not give realistic explinations for how they could exist there.
3) The quantum world in not computable ordinary computers
Quantum interactions CAN be computed and are, but are very slow. This is a matter of speed of computation, not _logical_ impossibility.
Quantum information, if it's the same kind of information I'm used to, is platonic; so, I'd argue it doesn't exist in any real sense. Quantum interactions on the other hand, I agree, do. But, there is no evidence they have any bearing on the output or operation of a brain.
I must admit, maybe this is becuase of my "class of people", that I've never heard of physicists or mathematicians in our modern day talking seriously about things transcending the material (the merely matter). The idea of an "information" interacting in some way with matter in a non-religious way is also new. Understood or not, is quantum information even a trustworthy conjecture? How was this idea introduced?
I can't help but see this as a pseudo-scientific cartesian mind, which philosophers should have gotten rid of long ago.
The mind seems algorithmic, perhaps chaotic or only able to be modeled by non-liner equations or higher order logics, but the workings exist in our world. I really am struggling to understand your view. Any good intro links?
All there is in this universe is: 1) matter 2) energy. If you don't think the brain works based on these things, I think you've gone religious.
There has been a lot of ground being made describing parts of the brain as algorithms. Vision, hearing, and balance have all been almost completely reverse-engineered from maps of our neurons.
No doubt consiousness will be much more difficult to crack, but there is no evidence that quantum interactions have any effect on these simpler parts of the brain, so I think the evidence goes to the deterministic camp for now.
Re:We'd Be Stupid Too Depend On Space in War
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 1
But, strangely enough the chinese military technology uses US GPS recievers.
I'm sure they're trying to fix this as fast as they can.
I'm not sure if AJWM was trying to claim that modern global warming is just something the earth is doing, but the point is good that we've gone through changes like this before and haven't had any trouble enjoying them.
If we caused this or not, it doesn't seem to be anything to get upset about.
Slashdot Mirror
If I remember correctly, Aerosmith was being charged around 500K to record an album -- so they put together a 100K studio in one of their houses and produced their stuff on their own. It worked fine.
Whoever wrote this needs a kick in the face.
The text makes it sound like: I visit geocities.com/~me/ and when I hit 'back' button on any normal browser it'll take me back one index page to geocities.com/ -- even if I've never been there. We all know this is not how it works.
It also makes it seem like the new idea is what we've already got. You've got to think a while before you get past the writing and it clicks.
Problem with current: I visit geocities.com/~me/ and click on 'About me', then hit 'back.' Now, I click on the slashdot link. No amount of back or forward action will get me 'About me' again.
New: What's different is when you click 'forward' in the new method, it's a tree -- there are two choices now. Which is default? I don't know. They only explain that the pull-down menu will be a tree.
Well, at least somehow, I'll get to 'About me' without having to click links and find it again.
I remember a hearing about a case like this, where a girl who underwent hypnosis "remembered" she was raped by her father and had given birth. Physical examination showed she not only had never given birth, but was still a virgin.
Sig: Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
I choose 'enjoy your job' and 'make lots of money.'
It would be hard to argue that a newborn is sentient.
No, not really.
Even inherently unpredictable quantum processes?
Isn't there a definite probability associated with quantum processes? Isn't modeling that enough?
Many minds. Long time.
You can find the nth digit of Pi in hexadecimal, but not decimal.
See: http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_3_2_98.html
Consider me converted.
It's not much of an infinate task. There's an infinate that are "not an equal and opposite reaction to a" and only one that is.
The infinity of results all share the property that matters so, infinate or not, it's not an infinite task.
Or am I missing something?
... you can never really prove that a statement is true by empirical evidence, because you may always find some case later in which the statement is false.So by this reasoning, you can't ever prove that fo is not bar, because you might somehow later find a case in which the fo is bar. ..."so by this reasoning"? That reasoning doesn't apply. That's the whole point!
If you say all sheep are white, and you find a white one, nothing has been proven. Admitted.
If you say all sheep are white, and you find a black one, you have proven the statement wrong.
How can any new evidence alter that falsifacation? Did you observe the sheep wrong, so it's really not black?
"Nevertheless, it *would* be possible to navigate the pages...with the pen you use to do the crosswords." ... "Brushing you finger (like mouse gestures) could also turn the pages and do suff."</I>
I don't think you get what "you have to give the user a way to navigate all those pages" is about. How do you get it to show a <B>web</B> page that isn't listed or linked to? If you can't, then what's the point? Otherwise it's just a newspaper where you can hit "more." -- useless.
Actually, as I understand it, that the fossil record shows progress over time is what is considered a fact. Explaining _why_ this is, is the part that gets so much debate (excluding, of course, the rabid fundies who deny the fossil record).
...as I understand it.
It's like that there is a "fact" of gravity that we all see, but each theory only gets us a little closer. The fundies don't realize (metaphorically) that if newtonian gravity isn't perfect, that doesn't make gravity go away.
Are evolutionary theories changed since darwin? Yes. Have they still got problems? Yes. Does that mean evolution doesn't exist? No. That just be confusing the "theory" of an event with the existance of the event.
Because if something were to really go faster than light in every way, it would have to go back in time.
Many (or most?) of our founders (and almost all of the big ones I think) were deists, not revelatory theists. A small point, but true. I think the founders would want us to use our own judgement to find our way.
As for the rest, yes.
The point is that, although genetics are obviously important, there seems to be more to a human being than just his genetic code and experiences. For lack of a better word, I will call that his "soul."
Or differing nutrient and hormonal exposure when they shared the womb...
Some work has gone into getting solar panels on the roofs of wide buildings and materials that generate electricity when tall buildings sway.
The same way you do it on paper. It's probabilistic. Given an event's probibility, pick an outcome.
Penrose has based his idea on several flawed arguments:
1) Humans can do more than computers
He tries to use Godel's incompleteness theorem to show that if a mathematicians mind were reduced to a formal system, it would have to encapsulate his mind, everything he knows and everything he CAN know. He then tries to show that this wouldn't work because of Godel.
This argument doesn't work. It only proves that if human reasoning is computable, then it must either be unsound, or it must be impossible for us to know both what our own reasoning powers are and to also know that they are sound. The idea of unsoundess to human reasoning has some basis in fact IMHO.
2) Long-range quantum interactions can exist in the brain environment
These quantum effects he theorizes take place in the brain are some of the most fragile things in the universe and the brain is not a good place for them. He does not give realistic explinations for how they could exist there.
3) The quantum world in not computable ordinary computers
Quantum interactions CAN be computed and are, but are very slow. This is a matter of speed of computation, not _logical_ impossibility.
Quantum information, if it's the same kind of information I'm used to, is platonic; so, I'd argue it doesn't exist in any real sense. Quantum interactions on the other hand, I agree, do. But, there is no evidence they have any bearing on the output or operation of a brain.
I must admit, maybe this is becuase of my "class of people", that I've never heard of physicists or mathematicians in our modern day talking seriously about things transcending the material (the merely matter). The idea of an "information" interacting in some way with matter in a non-religious way is also new. Understood or not, is quantum information even a trustworthy conjecture? How was this idea introduced?
I can't help but see this as a pseudo-scientific cartesian mind, which philosophers should have gotten rid of long ago.
The mind seems algorithmic, perhaps chaotic or only able to be modeled by non-liner equations or higher order logics, but the workings exist in our world. I really am struggling to understand your view. Any good intro links?
All there is in this universe is: 1) matter 2) energy. If you don't think the brain works based on these things, I think you've gone religious.
There has been a lot of ground being made describing parts of the brain as algorithms. Vision, hearing, and balance have all been almost completely reverse-engineered from maps of our neurons.
No doubt consiousness will be much more difficult to crack, but there is no evidence that quantum interactions have any effect on these simpler parts of the brain, so I think the evidence goes to the deterministic camp for now.
But, strangely enough the chinese military technology uses US GPS recievers.
I'm sure they're trying to fix this as fast as they can.
I'm not sure if AJWM was trying to claim that modern global warming is just something the earth is doing, but the point is good that we've gone through changes like this before and haven't had any trouble enjoying them.
If we caused this or not, it doesn't seem to be anything to get upset about.
Well, really, a LASER is anything that operates by lasing. You remember, the light amplification by stimulation of... bla bla bla.
The truth is, lasers (even the standard HeNe) don't have to emit a strait beam or a single wavelength of light to be lasers.
"We have come along and destroyed all the gains we have made in hardware" - no, we have leveraged them into more flexability.
Make a list of everything you actually use the office suite for (if you use it) and then ask, does this merit a whole CD set to install?
What I'd like to know is, where does all that space go? It can't be code...