Please back up your statement that the only thing biological brains do is correlate events. Otherwise, again, this is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. Also where was Plato's, Aristotle's, Galileo's or Newton's economic and military incentives? Also who was saying that human's are rational as a species? Only that they are capable of intelligence. Many people do not or can not use this ability.
Again, this is becoming a philosophical discussion. Might I mention that prior to the invention of computers, computation and language was considered the marks of intelligence since humans could do it and animals could not? (Note that this indicates that the term 'AI' is then very accurate, even for menial tasks) Now again the definition expands to these so called "emergent qualities" in order to restrict the property 'intelligent' to be true only in humans. It's a problem of the definition, not the concept, and this trend indicates that computers will never be considered intelligent because humans will always find a way to make themselves special. Either way, things such as computer generated poetry are not unheard of (http://www.robopoem.com/) and I would not be surprised if someone has done something similar with pictures.
Also that is not by my logic, I tried to be very specific that things that humans construct with tools is considered 'artificial'. All things outside that category are thus natural. I apologize if there was confusion in my definition.
As a final note, I feel that I must point out that not all humans are intelligent, even by simplistic metrics such as ability to perform simple computations.
By your reasoning, artificial limbs are also incorrect, they are either limbs or they are not. The point here is that artificial in these cases means 'constructed by human beings using tools, not grown from some natural phenomenon'. It's just the naming.
Now if you wanna get all philosophical about the concept of intelligence, there's a whole other can of worms. I just refuse to let philosophers have a say in the naming of technical advancements. (unless the philosophers know were involved in the design...)
I wonder if it started as a joke:
Admin: and how do you propose we sprinkle the neutrons around our reactor?
Physicist(sarcastically): I dunno, we put it in a toy train and run it in circles.
Admin: OK, get me the results by Fri.
I agree, they should have at least come up with a less contradictory name. I'm sure there's someone's name that can be slapped on it: CoolPlasmaMan's Torus or something, then it's just a special case of a Torus which seems to match it's actual topology.
Yea, RNAi has been around for years and can inhibit the expression of genes, but actually expressing genes that are not being expressed seems (to me, although I might be wrong) to be a slightly different problem. It seems easier to insert RNAi into a cell rather than to force the expression of an RNA.
That would be interesting to see which of that DNA actually gets expressed in the cell. scarier thought: what would happen if those parts could be forced to be expressed...
Slashdot Mirror
Please back up your statement that the only thing biological brains do is correlate events. Otherwise, again, this is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. Also where was Plato's, Aristotle's, Galileo's or Newton's economic and military incentives? Also who was saying that human's are rational as a species? Only that they are capable of intelligence. Many people do not or can not use this ability.
Again, this is becoming a philosophical discussion. Might I mention that prior to the invention of computers, computation and language was considered the marks of intelligence since humans could do it and animals could not? (Note that this indicates that the term 'AI' is then very accurate, even for menial tasks) Now again the definition expands to these so called "emergent qualities" in order to restrict the property 'intelligent' to be true only in humans. It's a problem of the definition, not the concept, and this trend indicates that computers will never be considered intelligent because humans will always find a way to make themselves special. Either way, things such as computer generated poetry are not unheard of (http://www.robopoem.com/) and I would not be surprised if someone has done something similar with pictures. Also that is not by my logic, I tried to be very specific that things that humans construct with tools is considered 'artificial'. All things outside that category are thus natural. I apologize if there was confusion in my definition. As a final note, I feel that I must point out that not all humans are intelligent, even by simplistic metrics such as ability to perform simple computations.
Stop giving microsoft ideas for "hardcore games". Now that I think about it, I wonder if Natal is good enough at human anatomy for that use....
By your reasoning, artificial limbs are also incorrect, they are either limbs or they are not. The point here is that artificial in these cases means 'constructed by human beings using tools, not grown from some natural phenomenon'. It's just the naming. Now if you wanna get all philosophical about the concept of intelligence, there's a whole other can of worms. I just refuse to let philosophers have a say in the naming of technical advancements. (unless the philosophers know were involved in the design...)
People, please let's stop clogging the tubes with redundant stories! What if I need to sent an internet later?
I wonder if it started as a joke: Admin: and how do you propose we sprinkle the neutrons around our reactor? Physicist(sarcastically): I dunno, we put it in a toy train and run it in circles. Admin: OK, get me the results by Fri.
I agree, they should have at least come up with a less contradictory name. I'm sure there's someone's name that can be slapped on it: CoolPlasmaMan's Torus or something, then it's just a special case of a Torus which seems to match it's actual topology.
I'm sure he'd much rather you send a cell phone.
Yea, RNAi has been around for years and can inhibit the expression of genes, but actually expressing genes that are not being expressed seems (to me, although I might be wrong) to be a slightly different problem. It seems easier to insert RNAi into a cell rather than to force the expression of an RNA.
That would be interesting to see which of that DNA actually gets expressed in the cell. scarier thought: what would happen if those parts could be forced to be expressed...