Unfortunately, most LCD screens have a very narrow vertical viewing angle compared the the horizontal viewing angle (because eyes are horizontally spaced). On many monitors, you get a slight color shift just from the angular difference between your left and right eye. I can't stand this on any monitor I've tried to rotate.
Well, then you move on to a harder pattern, such as "what mood was the writer in when they wrote this" or "does the puppy in this picture look sad?" or, "is the person pictured in a dangerous situation".
If we're at that point...then I would assume we would also have the ability to detect spam in a contextual sense!
I assumed that you would understand that I was talking about the analogues to dopamine for a computer...not actual dopamine.
You can simulate the effects, but simulating a brain doesn't result in thought or feeling any more than simulating an atomic explosion results in radiation.
I don't think this is a fair comparison. Radiation is a physical emission from a a physical process: particles shooting out. So yes, while you don't get radiation from a simulation of an atomic explosion, you do get results that says what kind of radiation, the amount of radiation, and if your model is accurate enough, even the path of that radiation. You can make it into a movie if you like, showing how, if you were to actually create that explosion with the atoms configured the same, your radiation would come blasting out. It may not be perfect, but, if your model was good enough, it would be *very close*.
The main difference between the explosion and thought/feelings is that thought and feelings don't have to be physical to be observed. While they are from a physical/biological process and state in your mind, their substance is in the form of expression.
So, yes. In your atomic explosion simulation you don't have real radiation. In your brain simulation, why can't you have real expression?
If you're simulating a brain, if your model is close enough and your starting conditions are right, why couldn't it simulate a sentence that you would get if it were loaded with, say, the "neural state" that your mind is in right now as you read this? It may not be exactly what you would say, but, again, if your model was good enough, it could be *very close*.
The expression could simply be in the form of a sentence...which is just as real of an expression as I'm typing now, unlike the atomic simulation.
It seems that the problem you have with this is that you don't think we will ever have a model of the brain that is accurate enough. If that's the case, then I guess time will have to tell and the the level of "thought" and "feelings" that you think are actually thoughts and feelings would have to be defined. Say the model was only close enough to simulate the thoughts and feelings for a dog? Would that be sufficient? What about a mentally disabled person who can barely express themselves? Would that be sufficient?
I think this and single or even multi pixel illumination will be the biggest movement in the nearish future displays. The whole concept of blasting full brightness/power for a black screen (with current backlight displays) is just insane/dumb for mobile applications.
I think the coolest, but probably not very useful, future of PixelQi type displays is the possibility for true color displays....as in each pixel can be any color of the rainbow, emitting the wavelength of that color rather than the poor gamut of RGB. The lack of brightness control for the color pixels of these types of screens probably totally kills and "better quality" claims though...unless they just pulse the colors...maybe in the future.
Dual core is always nice. That way, OS functions (like touch processing/gesture recognition, backgound anything, etc) can be separate from the application process giving consistency/no jumpy lag. Especially if you're watching something as intensive as a 2 megapixel video.
Bluetooth tether? I did this between my phone and laptop for a while. Any time my pocket was near the laptop, I could click a button and have internet access connect.
So, if you add dopamine, you become happy. This sounds like a chemical that, somewhat globally, changes the function of many parts of the brain.
Can you measure the amount of dopamine in the brain to roughly measure happiness? If this is true, then isn't that dopamine just acting as a happiness variable with some value?
Why would it have to be so different for a computer with some floating point value? Why couldn't each function have this dopamine parameter than slightly changed the response of the function based on the level of dopamine? Would the change in these functions be perceivable from the outside? Of course! Would you be able to predict the outside behavior based on the dopamine, or the dopamine based on the outside behavior? Of course, if you observed it for a while.
Now, could you predict the behavior of dopamine, in a human, if the function of the dopamine was not fixed? Of course not. We know it's roughly the same for everyone. It *is* acting as a global happiness parameter. Why can't we sprinkle some dopamine into a program?
I disagree with the grandparent that a thinking machine *will* be made in a chemical process. I believe that nature uses chemicals because they are practically free, they're everywhere, extremely energy dense, and efficiency/recyclable. I think it's a result of availability, not function.
But, I don't think that thinking computers will ever use serial type processors for their main processing power. I can imagine using fast serial, or even very parallel serial processors as control and math type coprocessors, but I think the bulk of processing and "thought" will have to occur in the analog domain, something like this. They stay with the neuron design, but implement it in silicon.
The problem with serial computing is that the information is absolute and stored and transferred with incredible density. The value of a number might be in a single location in ram, then transferred over a single memory bus, with some operation performed on it, the operation also being stored as a single number that made its own journey...and this has to take place with very close to no chance of error.
A modern CPU will usually fail manufacturer screening even if a *single* transistor, out of the millions in there, doesn't function properly (this is where the lower core count, but similar feature processors come from, as well). That's an insane requirement for a massive system!
My biggest question is how closely we'll end up mirroring animal brains. From a mouse to a human, they're all extremely similar. I think it's silly to think that human consciousness and personality, which is all *extremely* similar for all of us, doesn't come, in a large part, from the pre-built structures that are there. I've seen people argue that there's no way to know if one person perceives the world the same...well I think it's pretty close, mostly because if we each had to wire our own consciousness, I think we'd see a HUGE variation in personalities and abilities. As it is, there's virtually no difference (except dysfunctional brains).
What about when website authors get to the point where they use nothing but a big canvas?
I have a feeling this is where it's headed...so you'll need something like a javascript spy trying to figure out of the square just drawn is part of an ad or part of the ui.
For this reason alone I assume that companies will flock to a canvas only html5 sites: more control over what is and isn't displayed.
Is molten rock all that conductive or much of a dielectric? If not, then it wouldn't be much different than passing a radio wave through several layers of concrete (walls). This will be much easier than trying to transmit out from water, a conductive and very dielectric material.
That's nice. Not sure what you're replying to. You originally said "It worked worse than an ordinary settop rabbit ears/loop antenna."...that's why I mentioned bunny ears.
I can't understand that first sentence as presented...maybe you have a somewhat whimsical definition of truth, especially since you say that however "truth" is defined, you are correct.
Actually, I can't really counter any of this effectively. You give no insight to your definitions to words that are hard to define...meaning you have the freedom to change what you meant at any time.
Anyways...
If will is determination to do something, then why can't a robot have will? If it is "programmed" to get some money from someone (maybe based on some fact, like the number of blinking lights), is that not will? It's drive/motivation/intent is to get some money. How is this different than a human having a crying hungry child (rather than blinking lights) at home and doing the same?
If deceiving requires the conscious will to do so, then what's the problem? Say the robot has a list of actions that will cause money to be made (selling hot dogs, doing labor, theft, etc) and it decides which one is best (based on the "facts"). Lets say it picks the theft option since it is all out of hot dogs to sell and is feeling low on energy from all of the manual labor. Is this enough will?
What if the possible actions list contains millions of elements...what if it contains more than you can think of and the robot sees three blinking lights? Is this will?
So, now with its three blinking lights and decision (intent) to rob you, it knows (has facts) that it has to get physically close to you to physically rob you. Now, on to another list of actions, this time the list includes falling down and calling for help, lasso, projectile netting, etc.
Now it has will, intent, and possible means to rob you...those means include tricking you. Why is the concept of will, intent, and deception so impossible?
You're right, I didn't. I was shedding light on why your whole house antenna was worse that your bunny ears.
I didn't say ideal antenna would be a fraction, I said "This is why most antennas you see". Like you said, they get unwieldy for longer wavelengths. More importantly, at full wavelength, the antenna pattern becomes mostly useless. With shorter wavelengths, you get more of a smashed donut, meaning nice gain in the horizontal direction, less from up and down. At full wavelength, you get a null in the horizontal...meaning it's pretty close to useless...at least for us who live and, generally, move around on the ground.
That's because the wavelength of TV transmissions is around 2 feet...an antenna with elements longer than this can't efficiently capture the radio energy! The goal of antenna is to induce a resonance in the elements. This is why most antennas you see are some nice fraction of the wavelength; the peak of the radio signal helps reinforce the wave already moving in the antenna. This has the effect of having a nice change in impedance between the air and the antenna for the incoming wave. The closer the impedance, the less reflections off of the antenna (or antenna driver circuit to antenna if you're transmitting).
Now, it would be interesting to use houses across the nation for low frequency antennas for radio astronomy. All the noisy circuits that people attach to their power lines would probably overpower any extraterrestrial signals though:-\
Well of course not. It's a compression into a small dynamic range that our 8 bit per color channel (hahahahah!) monitors provide.
And, unless we go back to per pixel light generation and get rid of this backlight nonsense (full power for a black image!?), I'm not sure I want a screen bright enough to provide decent HDR!
There's some motivation to get the "pixels" to respond like the human eye, or the retinal response model, giving the most realism...although, this probably would be tweaked to give some effect since super real isn't necessarily the goal *cough* 24pfs video *cough*.
They must not have access to the "raw" data stream for video, because these sensors have a pretty huge dynamic range, around +/- 2 stops. This is the reason pro's shoot in the "raw" format. It saves the pixel brightness data, each pixel in the Bayer pattern, as 14bit values, so you can adjust the exposure afterwords. This is what makes single image HDR possible. I imagine that the camera manufacturers will eventually do something like shown in that paper. Or, maybe they'll get the Super CCD (by Fujifilm) style sensor to work better.
define:belief - any cognitive content held as true. Not the, "Oh look, Johnny5 died and he came back as a T-551 model because he was good! Praise Serial number 00000000001!!" kind.
I think the whole concept of deception is a necessary step in robotics for communication. What's the difference between deception and non-literal communication? Not much.
For the first crappy example that comes to mind, if I'm talking to someone and they use a double negative, I have to deceive them into thinking I heard a single negative. If this deception fails, the communication might get awkward or fail, and tho whole relationship could change ("They think I'm an idiot.", thinks the other person).
For the terribly imprecise (for most) nature of human speech, the whole concept of knowing someone is incorrect and figuring out what they *actually* meant rather than what they spoke, and tolerating someones belief/opinion that you think is wrong all involve deception to keep the communication smooth. At least IMO.
Of course, someday I might find myself dead and robbed in an alley after following what I thought was some robot woman who needed my help (since us great apes are so comfortable in the trees) getting her robot kitty from a robot tree.:-\
I can somewhat agree, but I think it was mostly releasing poor code that caused its death. To me, *the* biggest problem with wave was that it was virtually unusable for the majority of its life. If you reached near 50 edits, the page would begin to crawl and the whole timeline system would come to a standstill. Once you neared 100 blips, the typing would slow to a few characters per second...on a dual core system. Loading was into the 10 to 20 second range, and scrolling with their whole custom rubber band scroll bar became unbearable, well more so than it already was. The code was *horribly* unoptimized. This is why all of the heavy users that I knew, including myself, stopped using it. When they finally got around to making the interface something usable, we weren't interested anymore.
Also, the whole lack of inline images (without searching for a bot), lack of gmail integration, and lack of blip management (copy, move, etc) was a real PITA.
I think they should have looked at the signal levels that calls begin to drop or get garbled data. THAT would be more interesting. What if the iPhone4 is "over reporting" because it has a more sensitive radio? If I were apple, or any company, I would show signals bars based on the chance of dropping data, not the raw signal strength. With having half the range as 5 bars, seems like that's what they did.
*Disclaimer: I have a WinMo phone. I really don't give a damn about any of these platforms. None of them suite me.
Maybe blasting ps2/usb keyboard waveforms to execute keystrokes (by controller in keyboard or just onto data line)? Maybe blast certain carrier waves so that unwanted modulation happens inside the device, transmitting data that wouldn't normally be transmitted?
I imagine these are the types of things they're thinking of for controlling...creating so much interference that the interference couples onto data buses and executes some commands...or something similar.
I agree that having specialized systems probably would make this impossible, but I imagine they're going for standard devices and peripherals...if it were me, I'd go for slow types of buses and signals...those made for humans!
If they can figure out how to do this two way...that would be amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, most LCD screens have a very narrow vertical viewing angle compared the the horizontal viewing angle (because eyes are horizontally spaced). On many monitors, you get a slight color shift just from the angular difference between your left and right eye. I can't stand this on any monitor I've tried to rotate.
Well, then you move on to a harder pattern, such as "what mood was the writer in when they wrote this" or "does the puppy in this picture look sad?" or, "is the person pictured in a dangerous situation".
If we're at that point...then I would assume we would also have the ability to detect spam in a contextual sense!
It's 2600...I'm sure it's one of their puzzles.
Sadly, parent should probably be marked as insightful/informative rather than funny. :-\
Still...very good news for The Land of The *Free*!
I assumed that you would understand that I was talking about the analogues to dopamine for a computer...not actual dopamine.
You can simulate the effects, but simulating a brain doesn't result in thought or feeling any more than simulating an atomic explosion results in radiation.
I don't think this is a fair comparison. Radiation is a physical emission from a a physical process: particles shooting out. So yes, while you don't get radiation from a simulation of an atomic explosion, you do get results that says what kind of radiation, the amount of radiation, and if your model is accurate enough, even the path of that radiation. You can make it into a movie if you like, showing how, if you were to actually create that explosion with the atoms configured the same, your radiation would come blasting out. It may not be perfect, but, if your model was good enough, it would be *very close*.
The main difference between the explosion and thought/feelings is that thought and feelings don't have to be physical to be observed. While they are from a physical/biological process and state in your mind, their substance is in the form of expression.
So, yes. In your atomic explosion simulation you don't have real radiation. In your brain simulation, why can't you have real expression?
If you're simulating a brain, if your model is close enough and your starting conditions are right, why couldn't it simulate a sentence that you would get if it were loaded with, say, the "neural state" that your mind is in right now as you read this? It may not be exactly what you would say, but, again, if your model was good enough, it could be *very close*.
The expression could simply be in the form of a sentence...which is just as real of an expression as I'm typing now, unlike the atomic simulation.
It seems that the problem you have with this is that you don't think we will ever have a model of the brain that is accurate enough. If that's the case, then I guess time will have to tell and the the level of "thought" and "feelings" that you think are actually thoughts and feelings would have to be defined. Say the model was only close enough to simulate the thoughts and feelings for a dog? Would that be sufficient? What about a mentally disabled person who can barely express themselves? Would that be sufficient?
PixelQi display (indoor/outdoor/e-ink)
I think this and single or even multi pixel illumination will be the biggest movement in the nearish future displays. The whole concept of blasting full brightness/power for a black screen (with current backlight displays) is just insane/dumb for mobile applications.
I think the coolest, but probably not very useful, future of PixelQi type displays is the possibility for true color displays....as in each pixel can be any color of the rainbow, emitting the wavelength of that color rather than the poor gamut of RGB. The lack of brightness control for the color pixels of these types of screens probably totally kills and "better quality" claims though...unless they just pulse the colors...maybe in the future.
Dual core is always nice. That way, OS functions (like touch processing/gesture recognition, backgound anything, etc) can be separate from the application process giving consistency/no jumpy lag. Especially if you're watching something as intensive as a 2 megapixel video.
Bluetooth tether? I did this between my phone and laptop for a while. Any time my pocket was near the laptop, I could click a button and have internet access connect.
Don't worry, I see what you were saying. I think most everyone misread what you wrote...especially the
let me present a little thought experiment to you...
part.
You actually supported what he was saying and what you misread.
So, if you add dopamine, you become happy. This sounds like a chemical that, somewhat globally, changes the function of many parts of the brain.
Can you measure the amount of dopamine in the brain to roughly measure happiness? If this is true, then isn't that dopamine just acting as a happiness variable with some value?
Why would it have to be so different for a computer with some floating point value? Why couldn't each function have this dopamine parameter than slightly changed the response of the function based on the level of dopamine? Would the change in these functions be perceivable from the outside? Of course! Would you be able to predict the outside behavior based on the dopamine, or the dopamine based on the outside behavior? Of course, if you observed it for a while.
Now, could you predict the behavior of dopamine, in a human, if the function of the dopamine was not fixed? Of course not. We know it's roughly the same for everyone. It *is* acting as a global happiness parameter. Why can't we sprinkle some dopamine into a program?
I disagree with the grandparent that a thinking machine *will* be made in a chemical process. I believe that nature uses chemicals because they are practically free, they're everywhere, extremely energy dense, and efficiency/recyclable. I think it's a result of availability, not function.
But, I don't think that thinking computers will ever use serial type processors for their main processing power. I can imagine using fast serial, or even very parallel serial processors as control and math type coprocessors, but I think the bulk of processing and "thought" will have to occur in the analog domain, something like this. They stay with the neuron design, but implement it in silicon.
The problem with serial computing is that the information is absolute and stored and transferred with incredible density. The value of a number might be in a single location in ram, then transferred over a single memory bus, with some operation performed on it, the operation also being stored as a single number that made its own journey...and this has to take place with very close to no chance of error.
A modern CPU will usually fail manufacturer screening even if a *single* transistor, out of the millions in there, doesn't function properly (this is where the lower core count, but similar feature processors come from, as well). That's an insane requirement for a massive system!
My biggest question is how closely we'll end up mirroring animal brains. From a mouse to a human, they're all extremely similar. I think it's silly to think that human consciousness and personality, which is all *extremely* similar for all of us, doesn't come, in a large part, from the pre-built structures that are there. I've seen people argue that there's no way to know if one person perceives the world the same...well I think it's pretty close, mostly because if we each had to wire our own consciousness, I think we'd see a HUGE variation in personalities and abilities. As it is, there's virtually no difference (except dysfunctional brains).
What about when website authors get to the point where they use nothing but a big canvas?
I have a feeling this is where it's headed...so you'll need something like a javascript spy trying to figure out of the square just drawn is part of an ad or part of the ui.
For this reason alone I assume that companies will flock to a canvas only html5 sites: more control over what is and isn't displayed.
Is molten rock all that conductive or much of a dielectric? If not, then it wouldn't be much different than passing a radio wave through several layers of concrete (walls). This will be much easier than trying to transmit out from water, a conductive and very dielectric material.
That's nice. Not sure what you're replying to. You originally said "It worked worse than an ordinary settop rabbit ears/loop antenna."...that's why I mentioned bunny ears.
I can't understand that first sentence as presented...maybe you have a somewhat whimsical definition of truth, especially since you say that however "truth" is defined, you are correct.
Actually, I can't really counter any of this effectively. You give no insight to your definitions to words that are hard to define...meaning you have the freedom to change what you meant at any time.
Anyways...
If will is determination to do something, then why can't a robot have will? If it is "programmed" to get some money from someone (maybe based on some fact, like the number of blinking lights), is that not will? It's drive/motivation/intent is to get some money. How is this different than a human having a crying hungry child (rather than blinking lights) at home and doing the same?
If deceiving requires the conscious will to do so, then what's the problem? Say the robot has a list of actions that will cause money to be made (selling hot dogs, doing labor, theft, etc) and it decides which one is best (based on the "facts"). Lets say it picks the theft option since it is all out of hot dogs to sell and is feeling low on energy from all of the manual labor. Is this enough will?
What if the possible actions list contains millions of elements...what if it contains more than you can think of and the robot sees three blinking lights? Is this will?
So, now with its three blinking lights and decision (intent) to rob you, it knows (has facts) that it has to get physically close to you to physically rob you. Now, on to another list of actions, this time the list includes falling down and calling for help, lasso, projectile netting, etc.
Now it has will, intent, and possible means to rob you...those means include tricking you. Why is the concept of will, intent, and deception so impossible?
You're right, I didn't. I was shedding light on why your whole house antenna was worse that your bunny ears.
I didn't say ideal antenna would be a fraction, I said "This is why most antennas you see". Like you said, they get unwieldy for longer wavelengths. More importantly, at full wavelength, the antenna pattern becomes mostly useless. With shorter wavelengths, you get more of a smashed donut, meaning nice gain in the horizontal direction, less from up and down. At full wavelength, you get a null in the horizontal...meaning it's pretty close to useless...at least for us who live and, generally, move around on the ground.
You seem grouchy.
That's because the wavelength of TV transmissions is around 2 feet...an antenna with elements longer than this can't efficiently capture the radio energy! The goal of antenna is to induce a resonance in the elements. This is why most antennas you see are some nice fraction of the wavelength; the peak of the radio signal helps reinforce the wave already moving in the antenna. This has the effect of having a nice change in impedance between the air and the antenna for the incoming wave. The closer the impedance, the less reflections off of the antenna (or antenna driver circuit to antenna if you're transmitting). Now, it would be interesting to use houses across the nation for low frequency antennas for radio astronomy. All the noisy circuits that people attach to their power lines would probably overpower any extraterrestrial signals though :-\
Well of course not. It's a compression into a small dynamic range that our 8 bit per color channel (hahahahah!) monitors provide.
And, unless we go back to per pixel light generation and get rid of this backlight nonsense (full power for a black image!?), I'm not sure I want a screen bright enough to provide decent HDR!
There's some motivation to get the "pixels" to respond like the human eye, or the retinal response model, giving the most realism...although, this probably would be tweaked to give some effect since super real isn't necessarily the goal *cough* 24pfs video *cough*.
Here's a cool paper:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.109.2728&rep=rep1&type=pdf
They must not have access to the "raw" data stream for video, because these sensors have a pretty huge dynamic range, around +/- 2 stops. This is the reason pro's shoot in the "raw" format. It saves the pixel brightness data, each pixel in the Bayer pattern, as 14bit values, so you can adjust the exposure afterwords. This is what makes single image HDR possible. I imagine that the camera manufacturers will eventually do something like shown in that paper. Or, maybe they'll get the Super CCD (by Fujifilm) style sensor to work better.
define:belief - any cognitive content held as true.
Not the, "Oh look, Johnny5 died and he came back as a T-551 model because he was good! Praise Serial number 00000000001!!" kind.
I think the whole concept of deception is a necessary step in robotics for communication. What's the difference between deception and non-literal communication? Not much.
For the first crappy example that comes to mind, if I'm talking to someone and they use a double negative, I have to deceive them into thinking I heard a single negative. If this deception fails, the communication might get awkward or fail, and tho whole relationship could change ("They think I'm an idiot.", thinks the other person).
For the terribly imprecise (for most) nature of human speech, the whole concept of knowing someone is incorrect and figuring out what they *actually* meant rather than what they spoke, and tolerating someones belief/opinion that you think is wrong all involve deception to keep the communication smooth. At least IMO.
Of course, someday I might find myself dead and robbed in an alley after following what I thought was some robot woman who needed my help (since us great apes are so comfortable in the trees) getting her robot kitty from a robot tree. :-\
Hrmm, first thing I said to myself was, "He looks like a computer nerd."
I guess I'm looking through #cf6275 colored glasses, though.
I can somewhat agree, but I think it was mostly releasing poor code that caused its death. To me, *the* biggest problem with wave was that it was virtually unusable for the majority of its life. If you reached near 50 edits, the page would begin to crawl and the whole timeline system would come to a standstill. Once you neared 100 blips, the typing would slow to a few characters per second...on a dual core system. Loading was into the 10 to 20 second range, and scrolling with their whole custom rubber band scroll bar became unbearable, well more so than it already was. The code was *horribly* unoptimized. This is why all of the heavy users that I knew, including myself, stopped using it. When they finally got around to making the interface something usable, we weren't interested anymore.
Also, the whole lack of inline images (without searching for a bot), lack of gmail integration, and lack of blip management (copy, move, etc) was a real PITA.
"the noise floor..." of the receiver.
I agree!
I think they should have looked at the signal levels that calls begin to drop or get garbled data. THAT would be more interesting. What if the iPhone4 is "over reporting" because it has a more sensitive radio? If I were apple, or any company, I would show signals bars based on the chance of dropping data, not the raw signal strength. With having half the range as 5 bars, seems like that's what they did.
*Disclaimer: I have a WinMo phone. I really don't give a damn about any of these platforms. None of them suite me.
Maybe blasting ps2/usb keyboard waveforms to execute keystrokes (by controller in keyboard or just onto data line)?
Maybe blast certain carrier waves so that unwanted modulation happens inside the device, transmitting data that wouldn't normally be transmitted?
I imagine these are the types of things they're thinking of for controlling...creating so much interference that the interference couples onto data buses and executes some commands...or something similar.
I agree that having specialized systems probably would make this impossible, but I imagine they're going for standard devices and peripherals...if it were me, I'd go for slow types of buses and signals...those made for humans!
If they can figure out how to do this two way...that would be amazing.