If I write a computer simulation of a candle flame, it does not follow that candle flames are therefore "designed", in the sense that the flame's composition, moment to moment, is what it is according to a designer's plan.
Evolutionary computation in general demonstrates that a population of imperfect replicators can indeed evolve to better suit the environment it finds itself in... no God or designer needed. Some Believers (but not all) see this as a problem, because they believe that if their Deity of choice is not strictly required based on their observations of Reality, then said Deity must not exist... and they find this intolerable. Therefore, these Believers will demand that Reality change so as to fit their beliefs. Said reality change could be as simple as their "re-interpreting" the information recieved by their senses, or as complicated as demanding that the books containing the ideas the have a problem with (and the authors of those books) be burned at the same stake.
Patents were designed to give *limited* exclusivity to an invention. Limited... you get exclusive rights for N years, then it gets thrown into the public domain. The patented idea, which was in the exclusive hands of one entity, is now available for everyone to use and build from. Unfortunately, if you have enough money, you can game the system to circumvent those time limits.
As for "a digital commons", it all depends on what you mean by that term. Care to state your definition?
Actually, the parent post addressed what that poster saw as a problem with the idea of evolving robots, namely that such activity conflicted with his religious beliefs. Since you are not in a position to determine what I can or cannot post, I'll continue to contribute to discussions as I see fit. Likewise, I'll question assumptions if and when I see such questions as being relevant to the discussion at hand.
For instance, humans have been using selective breeding to create variations of species which fit this or that set of requirements. How are evolving robots different?
I would say, (again, IMO) that the fatal misconception upon which your argument is based is the assertion that a Supreme Being exists. I would further venture to guess that you are under the impression that your particular sect of Christianity has the One And Only Truth as to the nature of Reality and the aforementioned Supreme Being.
Personally, I think it an example of hubris of the highest order to believe that (a) a supernatural being capable of creating the Universe would give a damn that we exist, much less be intimately concerned with our sex lives, whether or not we we eat meat for dinner on Friday, or the AI research we engage in, or (b) would presume that said Supernatural Being would hate the same people we do.
I'm as concerned about "a direct attack on God" as I am of "a direct attack on the Tooth Fairy"... that is to say, not at all.
the "problems with evolutionary theory" consist of debates as to the details of how evolution works. However, few in the scientific community have any serious doubts that life evolves over time, or that the species we see on earth today evolved from other species, all the way back to single-celled organisms in the distant past. Those who do doubt these facts are about on par with those who think the philogiston theory of combustion has merit.
I'm 41 years old. I "got" that there is more to life than doing things for money a long, long time ago.
Doing stuff for free is great, as long as it doesn't interfere with putting food in my belly and doesn't stop me from living my life the way I want to.
Fortunately, no one is demanding that you not feed yourself, or that you not live your life as you choose. Why the "Straw Man"?
I suggest you are suffering from a failure of imagination. No one is saying that you shouldn't make a living writing software. What people are saying is that "worth" can be measured in other ways... the recognition of one's peers, the satisfaction of providing a useful tool to yourself and others, or the feeling that you are "giving back" to the community that has given free software to you, or even the sense that you are making the world a better place by providing other humans with useful tools.
There's nothing wrong with making money. There's also nothing wrong with being motivated by other things. Have you never made a donation, or volunteered your time, or even held the door for someone? Did you expect money for these activities? If you did, then I pity you... you live in a very small, cold world.
isn't coming from Middle-Eastern terrorist groups. No, the greatest threat to my liberty comes from a government willing to take the freedom and liberty guaranteed me by the Constitution, and replace it with the illusion of security.
Planes aren't being hijacked because we stop the dreaded nail clipper from coming on board.
A dangerous habit to have? What are you going to do, have a hissy fit at me? Did I compain about my country? No, I pointed out the false dichotomies and simplistic nature of your world view. If you wish to damn me, then damn me for something I actually said.
"The point is, unit, corps, country, then yourself, that's how your importance levels should go."
Say what? That sounds like the order I'd expect from someone in the South American military of decades back. No, Sir, your unit and the Corps do most certainly not come ahead of your country... that way lies treason and military juntas.
I'll say this for you... you don't live the stereotype halfway.
Remember, I said that war was the last resort. I didn't say a damn thing about "throwing away the military"... that came out of your own head. As for soldiers dying for their country wasn't it Patton (you know who he was, right?) who said "The goal isn't for you to die for your country, it's for you to get the other bastard to die for his."
"If you believe in total pacifism, I believe France has open doors for your kind.But if you believe in the honor of battle, the strength of will, and can understand that their are times to fight. We have open arms for you."
And, apparently, if you believe in ridiculous false dichotomies, and a childish view of war and the military, the Marines have a place for you.
War will have lost its beauty? What kind of a sociopath are you?!? And, where in the world did you get that "8000 american live[sic] in 9-11"? Dude, I suggest therapy, and quick.
War is stupid. It wastes lives. It wastes resources. It is the very, very last resort of any rational individual. Don't talk about soldiers? Hell, yes let's talk about soldiers! When saber-rattling politicans use their mouths to write checks, it's charged to the soldiers... they, and their families are the ones who pay.
Re:Bill Gates, Hall of Fame Hacker? (P.S. First Po
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 1
Born in 1980? I graduated high school in 1980.
The first computer I owned was a VIC-20, followed by an Amiga 1000, then Amiga 2000 (which I still own). I didn't get another machine until 1998, when I built myself a Linux box. The first computer I ever used was a TRS-80 Model I, which I used to teach myself BASIC. Ah, those were the days...
What about doing the same thing with Perl? How does it compare to python when it comes to writing parts of your code in C? Do the advantages of Python outweigh the utility of CPAN?
Brains are computational, because they work based on the same fundamental physics, which is computational
How do you know this? Even if, as is apparently the case, you don't believe in God, and aliveness being something special and immaterial, there is still the fact that Quantum Mechanics is considered at least somewhat noncomputable, due to the Uncertainty Principle.
The doctrine of vitalism, the idea that living things have some extra "something" besides matter and energy that makes them distinct from non-living things, was discarded long ago for lack of evidence.
Quantum Mechanics gives us a very accurate discription of how matter and energy interact at very small scales. Neurons exist and operate on much larger scales. It may be that the operation of neurons have a significant noncomputable component to their operation, but, so far, the evidence we have does not support this position.
Brains are very intricate and complex, and not well understood. How do you know that they aren't affected by this, making them impossible to digitize?
It isn't a matter of "know"... it's a matter of evidence. Do you have any evidence which indicates that brains are impossible to digitize? Do you even have a somewhat-supported hypothesis?
Regarding 'understanding' -- there's nothing mysterious about this term -- it is simply a certain level of familiarity with a subject, and being able to answer to some detail 'how' and 'why' questions about it;
Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, there seems to be a difficulty with teaching 'understanding' to computers, else there'd be little/no need for human tech support call-center staffing.
AI is hard... that is a far different thing from saying AI is impossible. The most you can reasonably say is "We don't know, but so far there do not appear to be any fundamental reasons why we won't be able to." Personal incredulity doesn't count as a reason.
If you place no value on the future of the human race, or even the future of your own family/lineage/whatever, then nothing I can say will make a difference to you. I, however, am not content to see our species live and die on one planet, where a single wayward comet, or asteroid, or rapid climatic change could render our species extinct, such that it will be as if the likes of Mozart, Da Vinci, and Eintein had never lived. That Is Just Not Acceptable To Me.
The Earth is one teeny, tiny planet, in one solar system among hundreds of billions, in one galazy among.... well, you get the idea. In our solar system alone, there are vast quantities of resources, energy, and space, far more than can be found on our planet, not to mention that these resources can be exploited without trashing our own planet in the process. Should we turn our back on all that? I can't see a single good reason why we should.
Is manned spaceflight the best way to study the atmosphere of Jupiter? Probably not. Is this an argument for ending any and all manned space exploration in perpetuity? Of course not. Imagine our race had never left the oceans, and were no in the position of exploring dry land. Some would say "Why bother? We've got everything we need right here in the ocean." Others would say "We can send automated probes to learn whatever we want... besides, what are we going to do - dry stuff out and watch what happens?" There s a new world to be explored and experienced.
"Agendas" are in the eye of the beholder
on
Review: Panic Room
·
· Score: 1
If it WASN'T agenda driven, they could have explained the lack of a gun as easily as the lack of a phone and a silent alarm.
The unstated assumption here is that the lack of a gun needs to be explained at all. Sure, the "open the gun case and find it empty" scenario could have been used, but, having seen the movie just two days ago, I can assure you that this movie didn't need yet another "up the tension" scene. Remember the actual scenario here: the previous owner was a frail old man, one with the wherewithal and mindset to get a panic room in the first place. Sure, he could have owned and used a gun... but would you really expect him to? As for the mother and daughter, they had just moved in, were just beginning to deal with a divorce and an affair, and they didn't happen to own a gun... another non-surprise.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing against responsible gun ownership, but I don't fetishise it as the be-all, end-all of freedom, power, or anything else. A gun is a tool... a tool that makes small hunks of metal go very, very fast. Like any other tool, it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. It is not guaranteed to a. Prevent the Black Helicopters from landing on Main Street, b. Neutralize any and all threats to your person / family / property / neighborhood / whatever, or c. Increase your virility. Neither is it going to automatically kill all children or destroy civilization. Used responsibly, it can be used as part of a hobby (target shooting) or as a means of self-defense. Used irresponsibly, it can maim, kill, and make various sorts of crime and destruction easier. I approve of the former, and detest the latter.
When one corporation owns all the news outlets, they can decide what you see and hear, and have the money to buy whatever legislation or legal shielding they need. "But, I get my news from the net!" That's great... until they restrict that too. "But, some entrepreneur will start their own news service" Yes, perhaps... until OneCorp buys the right politicians, or puts pressure on your ISP. A nightmare.
Slashdot Mirror
If I write a computer simulation of a candle flame, it does not follow that candle flames are therefore "designed", in the sense that the flame's composition, moment to moment, is what it is according to a designer's plan.
Evolutionary computation in general demonstrates that a population of imperfect replicators can indeed evolve to better suit the environment it finds itself in... no God or designer needed. Some Believers (but not all) see this as a problem, because they believe that if their Deity of choice is not strictly required based on their observations of Reality, then said Deity must not exist... and they find this intolerable. Therefore, these Believers will demand that Reality change so as to fit their beliefs. Said reality change could be as simple as their "re-interpreting" the information recieved by their senses, or as complicated as demanding that the books containing the ideas the have a problem with (and the authors of those books) be burned at the same stake.
Eh... Kids today...
Mr. Mikey - #17567
Patents were designed to give *limited* exclusivity to an invention. Limited... you get exclusive rights for N years, then it gets thrown into the public domain. The patented idea, which was in the exclusive hands of one entity, is now available for everyone to use and build from. Unfortunately, if you have enough money, you can game the system to circumvent those time limits.
As for "a digital commons", it all depends on what you mean by that term. Care to state your definition?
Did anyone else notice this? Just how much is "considerable"?
Actually, the parent post addressed what that poster saw as a problem with the idea of evolving robots, namely that such activity conflicted with his religious beliefs. Since you are not in a position to determine what I can or cannot post, I'll continue to contribute to discussions as I see fit. Likewise, I'll question assumptions if and when I see such questions as being relevant to the discussion at hand.
For instance, humans have been using selective breeding to create variations of species which fit this or that set of requirements. How are evolving robots different?
I would say, (again, IMO) that the fatal misconception upon which your argument is based is the assertion that a Supreme Being exists. I would further venture to guess that you are under the impression that your particular sect of Christianity has the One And Only Truth as to the nature of Reality and the aforementioned Supreme Being.
I'm as concerned about "a direct attack on God" as I am of "a direct attack on the Tooth Fairy"... that is to say, not at all.
the "problems with evolutionary theory" consist of debates as to the details of how evolution works. However, few in the scientific community have any serious doubts that life evolves over time, or that the species we see on earth today evolved from other species, all the way back to single-celled organisms in the distant past. Those who do doubt these facts are about on par with those who think the philogiston theory of combustion has merit.
I'm 41 years old. I "got" that there is more to life than doing things for money a long, long time ago.
Fortunately, no one is demanding that you not feed yourself, or that you not live your life as you choose. Why the "Straw Man"?
There's nothing wrong with making money. There's also nothing wrong with being motivated by other things. Have you never made a donation, or volunteered your time, or even held the door for someone? Did you expect money for these activities? If you did, then I pity you... you live in a very small, cold world.
Planes aren't being hijacked because we stop the dreaded nail clipper from coming on board.
I am mocking you, diablobynight. Hope that helps.
A dangerous habit to have? What are you going to do, have a hissy fit at me? Did I compain about my country? No, I pointed out the false dichotomies and simplistic nature of your world view. If you wish to damn me, then damn me for something I actually said.
Say what? That sounds like the order I'd expect from someone in the South American military of decades back. No, Sir, your unit and the Corps do most certainly not come ahead of your country... that way lies treason and military juntas.
Remember, I said that war was the last resort. I didn't say a damn thing about "throwing away the military"... that came out of your own head. As for soldiers dying for their country wasn't it Patton (you know who he was, right?) who said "The goal isn't for you to die for your country, it's for you to get the other bastard to die for his."
And, apparently, if you believe in ridiculous false dichotomies, and a childish view of war and the military, the Marines have a place for you.
War is stupid. It wastes lives. It wastes resources. It is the very, very last resort of any rational individual. Don't talk about soldiers? Hell, yes let's talk about soldiers! When saber-rattling politicans use their mouths to write checks, it's charged to the soldiers... they, and their families are the ones who pay.
The first computer I owned was a VIC-20, followed by an Amiga 1000, then Amiga 2000 (which I still own). I didn't get another machine until 1998, when I built myself a Linux box. The first computer I ever used was a TRS-80 Model I, which I used to teach myself BASIC. Ah, those were the days...
Latin: Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
Translation:
I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.
Heh. Kids.
What about doing the same thing with Perl? How does it compare to python when it comes to writing parts of your code in C? Do the advantages of Python outweigh the utility of CPAN?
Quantum Mechanics gives us a very accurate discription of how matter and energy interact at very small scales. Neurons exist and operate on much larger scales. It may be that the operation of neurons have a significant noncomputable component to their operation, but, so far, the evidence we have does not support this position.
It isn't a matter of "know"... it's a matter of evidence. Do you have any evidence which indicates that brains are impossible to digitize? Do you even have a somewhat-supported hypothesis? AI is hard... that is a far different thing from saying AI is impossible. The most you can reasonably say is "We don't know, but so far there do not appear to be any fundamental reasons why we won't be able to." Personal incredulity doesn't count as a reason.Mr. Mikey
Bravo! Once I get my bobble generator set up, you're one of the ones I invite in.
The Earth is one teeny, tiny planet, in one solar system among hundreds of billions, in one galazy among.... well, you get the idea. In our solar system alone, there are vast quantities of resources, energy, and space, far more than can be found on our planet, not to mention that these resources can be exploited without trashing our own planet in the process. Should we turn our back on all that? I can't see a single good reason why we should.
Is manned spaceflight the best way to study the atmosphere of Jupiter? Probably not. Is this an argument for ending any and all manned space exploration in perpetuity? Of course not. Imagine our race had never left the oceans, and were no in the position of exploring dry land. Some would say "Why bother? We've got everything we need right here in the ocean." Others would say "We can send automated probes to learn whatever we want... besides, what are we going to do - dry stuff out and watch what happens?" There s a new world to be explored and experienced.
What is the connection?
For the record, I have absolutely nothing against responsible gun ownership, but I don't fetishise it as the be-all, end-all of freedom, power, or anything else. A gun is a tool... a tool that makes small hunks of metal go very, very fast. Like any other tool, it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. It is not guaranteed to a. Prevent the Black Helicopters from landing on Main Street, b. Neutralize any and all threats to your person / family / property / neighborhood / whatever, or c. Increase your virility. Neither is it going to automatically kill all children or destroy civilization. Used responsibly, it can be used as part of a hobby (target shooting) or as a means of self-defense. Used irresponsibly, it can maim, kill, and make various sorts of crime and destruction easier. I approve of the former, and detest the latter.
I'm sorry... did someone put a gun to your head and force you to read this thread? You may not care about this news, but some of us do.
When one corporation owns all the news outlets, they can decide what you see and hear, and have the money to buy whatever legislation or legal shielding they need. "But, I get my news from the net!" That's great... until they restrict that too. "But, some entrepreneur will start their own news service" Yes, perhaps... until OneCorp buys the right politicians, or puts pressure on your ISP. A nightmare.