Math has prior art on the use of the term. In fact, Physics' use of the term is just plain derivative.
In AI, the term singularity refers to the point where an AI can sustain its own learning and that learning outclasses what humans are capable of comprehending/predicting. Right now AIs are dependent on and limited by human instruction and guidance. I'm not talking about quantity of knowledge, but what the AI is capable of doing with that knowledge. The kind of reasoning and complexity of interaction the AI is capable of.
If the function f(x) represents the learning potential of the AI, then at the point that AI is able to teach itself and learn higher order concepts, metaphors, and thought patterns, its potential will have outclassed human potential and the function is effectively a singularity. (Might as well be infinite, since its beyond human comprehension).
On a personal note, I don't think a singularity is achievable without somehow embuing the AI with various forms of visceral sensation. Less symbolic reasoning (Chineses Room) and more experiential primitives. While human intelligence has been greatly advanced by language and formal conception, the underpinings of our concepts and understanding is still our primitive and direct experiences. We draw pictures on the board and ask our students to visualize when they are learning math. We use pictures to ground the meaning of the symbolic order.
Voter ID laws are about much more than illegals. In the last presidential contest, Romney get not one vote from 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia. Not one single vote. 19,605 to zero. Same with 9 precincts in Cleveland. Many of these voters are not even literate. This is a statistical impossibility. St. Lucie County in FLA had 141% voter turnout. Without fraud like that, the election might have had a different outcome.
It would help to actually do some research as to how it was probable that Romney would get 0 votes in these 59 districts.
-The precincts were primarily black, and we had our first black president running
-The precincts were centered in democratic territory.
-The precincts had small numbers of voter turn out. (Obama 4, Romney 0 is hardly statistically significant for proving fraud.)
I know its fun to take information and use it to support the worst possible interpretation, but you should probable check the contexts to make sure you have the right expectations set. I would expect tight, mono-culture communities to have uniform political views and voting behavior.
I know this, and I am definitely for the 3rd party donation of working mitochondria. My post wasn't to nay-say the procedure, merely to point out that there is more going on that should be given due consideration.
Does it have to be genetic material? It's not like gene expression is a context free grammar, quite the reverse. It is context sensitive. The chemical environment that the mother provides does have a significant impact on how the fetus develops. Hence why we encourage mothers to stay healthy, not smoke or drink, and avoid significant stress.
I've seen a lot of comments saying that its just an improvement in mitochondria and has no other impact on the original "human" DNA. This is an over simplification and is only possibly true if just the mitochondria is transplanted from the 3rd party donor. More likely its the DNA in the cells nucleus that will be transplanted to an egg from the 3rd party donor. In this case epigenetics can and will have a significant impact on how the genes of the original two parents gets expressed.
So, yeah, there would be more than just getting functioning mitochondria, all the organelles in the donor cell are mixed in as well as all the regulating chemistry involved in gene expression.
What I wouldn't give for a quality centrist party that's willing to compromise and work out policy that meets somewhere in the middle rather than having notthing but weird fringe parties who are way off to the edge in one extreme or another.
What would it take to start one? And how do you ensure it stays quality as it grows?
Things would be more fluid if we changed our voting system. Instead of "pick 1 out of many" we should have approval voting or a ranked voting system. Pick 1 out of many always converges to a 2 party system when people vote out of fear that another party will get elected. Those that fear Republican rule vote Democrat. Those that fear Democrat rule vote Republican.
Approval voting is the clearest method to understand. You vote "yeah/nay" on each option and the winner is the one with the greatest yeahs. This allows people to broaden their support of alternate parties while still getting to cast their fear-based vote. This is the only way that I see for the alternate parties to emerge without some significant scandal causing one of the current parties to implode.
Would you call that a religion, then? Or a philosophical approach to life? Although, the support structure around Osho and most big Gurus becomes quasi cultish. At that point the heirarchy between "guru" and "accolyte" needs to be examined for whether or not it is really a healthy relationship model for two humans to engage through.
Your statement is kind of funny. Religion started Science as a way to better understand God's world/works. Therefore, the Catholic Church (to be specific) has encouraged skeptical inquiry (science) since science was founded.
Therefore, you lie.
I think Galileo and Descartes might disagree with your proposal. Once the sacred cows start being threatened, the pretense of endorsing skeptical inquiry evaporates as well.
Is the statement "God exists" genuinely up for skeptical inquiry to a Catholic? Most attempts at questioning the existence of God on the part of the religious has been laughable. They can't see all the assumptions that have been made in their conceptualization and linguistic process. Real skeptical inquiry requires questioning all the tacit assumptions which subconsciously guide the mind to select for confirmation bias and circular justification of preconceptions.
Skeptical Inquiry quickly segways into the question of epistemology and when is it appropriate to form beliefs. Epistemology segways into perception and fallibility of classification, ontology formation and ontology revision. In order to get to any kind of objective perspective to answer ontological questions of this nature, one must first become neutral and self-aware. Be able to see how making an assumption has ripple effects in the belief system. The presence of a concept can skew how we interpret our experience in order to be consistent with the concept.
The "benevolent" aspects of the agendas are the vector by which the other memetic ideas infect the host attendants. Most will kick you out if you start challenging the other ideas that are included alongside of the "benevolent" ones.
besides, I would hardly call the ideas "benevolent" if I first have to believe I've committed mortal sins and require saving from those sins. In essence it attacks the self-esteem in order to get you to buy into the idea of being redeemed.
It is the nature of skeptical inquiry to erode the belief system. It can hardly be called a "religion" if there is no belief system being promoted and no dogma being encouraged to be bought into. In this case apriori definitions are sufficient and complete empirical investigation is unnecessary.
Can you think of any organization which would be accurately described as a "religion" which encouraged each person be skeptical of all beliefs, to challenge them and erode them? This would include challenging and skeptically investigating whatever tenets were the foundation of forming the organization.
Even if you could only reduce the idea of a religion to a family of resemblances such an organization (assuming it lived up to its own ideals) would hardly resemble any cluster of things which we could label "religion".
There is a kind of agenda to which all churches and religion can be lumped under, and that is the discouragement of skeptical inquiry in favor of promoting an unverifiable belief system. I suspect that is what the GP meant in indicating they have an "agenda".
While it is true every entity which has a desire also has the agenda to fulfill that desire, when someone highlights the existence of an agenda within a class of entities, they are carving out a set of agendas which are typical among class members and atypical for entities outside the class.
It is a common speech act (see the field of pragmatics) that when a universal attribute is invoked to describe a particular set in contrast to its complement, the nuance of meaning shifts to highlight the distinguishing features which are universal among and contribute to the classification of the set members.
Just re-read the second amendment. The sentence structure is obtuse, but I finally see the interpretation of it that you have put forward and agree it states that in order to have militias to protect the people, the people shall need to be armed.
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't read it that way yet, but that is clearly how it is meant.
As an aside, I often wonder how the constitution might have been written differently if the founders had lived in the modern era, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Bombs which can level city blocks, are these considered arms and a right which shall not be infringed?
Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy. If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation. Depending on if your state and the state the other party is in are two or one party states it is a moot point.
Unless the person is using speaker phone, the guy or gal on the other end of the line can't be heard. But a man-in-the-middle would hear the other person. As for texting, I do have an expectation of privacy as the viewing of the screen is typically limited to just me.
It is a legal problem. The Second Amendment is perfectly clear — keeping and bearing arms is a right. Any and all laws imposing licensing requirements turn that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) into a privilege (to be granted and withdrawn by the Executive), are just that: Unconstitutional.
the culture of guns in the usa is fucking retarded
That may or may not be so. I tend to like it, however.
Can you define for me what a "well regulated malitia" is and how the general populace passing a background check for gun ownership is sufficient to constitute a well regulated militia?
Slashdot Mirror
Math has prior art on the use of the term. In fact, Physics' use of the term is just plain derivative.
In AI, the term singularity refers to the point where an AI can sustain its own learning and that learning outclasses what humans are capable of comprehending/predicting. Right now AIs are dependent on and limited by human instruction and guidance. I'm not talking about quantity of knowledge, but what the AI is capable of doing with that knowledge. The kind of reasoning and complexity of interaction the AI is capable of.
If the function f(x) represents the learning potential of the AI, then at the point that AI is able to teach itself and learn higher order concepts, metaphors, and thought patterns, its potential will have outclassed human potential and the function is effectively a singularity. (Might as well be infinite, since its beyond human comprehension).
On a personal note, I don't think a singularity is achievable without somehow embuing the AI with various forms of visceral sensation. Less symbolic reasoning (Chineses Room) and more experiential primitives. While human intelligence has been greatly advanced by language and formal conception, the underpinings of our concepts and understanding is still our primitive and direct experiences. We draw pictures on the board and ask our students to visualize when they are learning math. We use pictures to ground the meaning of the symbolic order.
Could you cite a formal study of the error rates on vote casting for the different voting devices used, broken down by demographic?
Voter ID laws are about much more than illegals. In the last presidential contest, Romney get not one vote from 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia. Not one single vote. 19,605 to zero. Same with 9 precincts in Cleveland. Many of these voters are not even literate. This is a statistical impossibility. St. Lucie County in FLA had 141% voter turnout. Without fraud like that, the election might have had a different outcome.
It would help to actually do some research as to how it was probable that Romney would get 0 votes in these 59 districts.
This page: http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2012/11/other-precincts-where-romney-got-0-votes.html
Has the best explanation.
I will summarize:
(Obama 4, Romney 0 is hardly statistically significant for proving fraud.)
I know its fun to take information and use it to support the worst possible interpretation, but you should probable check the contexts to make sure you have the right expectations set. I would expect tight, mono-culture communities to have uniform political views and voting behavior.
I know this, and I am definitely for the 3rd party donation of working mitochondria. My post wasn't to nay-say the procedure, merely to point out that there is more going on that should be given due consideration.
Does it have to be genetic material? It's not like gene expression is a context free grammar, quite the reverse. It is context sensitive. The chemical environment that the mother provides does have a significant impact on how the fetus develops. Hence why we encourage mothers to stay healthy, not smoke or drink, and avoid significant stress.
There's gotta be something better than Cyanide to take in pill form to commit suicide in a pinch...
I've seen a lot of comments saying that its just an improvement in mitochondria and has no other impact on the original "human" DNA. This is an over simplification and is only possibly true if just the mitochondria is transplanted from the 3rd party donor. More likely its the DNA in the cells nucleus that will be transplanted to an egg from the 3rd party donor. In this case epigenetics can and will have a significant impact on how the genes of the original two parents gets expressed.
epigenetics
So, yeah, there would be more than just getting functioning mitochondria, all the organelles in the donor cell are mixed in as well as all the regulating chemistry involved in gene expression.
Unless it is to cure disease...
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/genetherapy/gtsuccess/
He forgot to mention that three of those donors would be bovine.
I for one welcome our new Minotaurus Overlordus
PS: I am a Texan.
What I wouldn't give for a quality centrist party that's willing to compromise and work out policy that meets somewhere in the middle rather than having notthing but weird fringe parties who are way off to the edge in one extreme or another.
What would it take to start one? And how do you ensure it stays quality as it grows?
Things would be more fluid if we changed our voting system. Instead of "pick 1 out of many" we should have approval voting or a ranked voting system. Pick 1 out of many always converges to a 2 party system when people vote out of fear that another party will get elected. Those that fear Republican rule vote Democrat. Those that fear Democrat rule vote Republican.
Approval voting is the clearest method to understand. You vote "yeah/nay" on each option and the winner is the one with the greatest yeahs. This allows people to broaden their support of alternate parties while still getting to cast their fear-based vote. This is the only way that I see for the alternate parties to emerge without some significant scandal causing one of the current parties to implode.
Thanks for pointing that out.
That is the best analogy I've come across for the situation. Well Done!
Would you call that a religion, then? Or a philosophical approach to life? Although, the support structure around Osho and most big Gurus becomes quasi cultish. At that point the heirarchy between "guru" and "accolyte" needs to be examined for whether or not it is really a healthy relationship model for two humans to engage through.
Your statement is kind of funny. Religion started Science as a way to better understand God's world/works. Therefore, the Catholic Church (to be specific) has encouraged skeptical inquiry (science) since science was founded.
Therefore, you lie.
I think Galileo and Descartes might disagree with your proposal. Once the sacred cows start being threatened, the pretense of endorsing skeptical inquiry evaporates as well.
Is the statement "God exists" genuinely up for skeptical inquiry to a Catholic? Most attempts at questioning the existence of God on the part of the religious has been laughable. They can't see all the assumptions that have been made in their conceptualization and linguistic process. Real skeptical inquiry requires questioning all the tacit assumptions which subconsciously guide the mind to select for confirmation bias and circular justification of preconceptions.
Skeptical Inquiry quickly segways into the question of epistemology and when is it appropriate to form beliefs. Epistemology segways into perception and fallibility of classification, ontology formation and ontology revision. In order to get to any kind of objective perspective to answer ontological questions of this nature, one must first become neutral and self-aware. Be able to see how making an assumption has ripple effects in the belief system. The presence of a concept can skew how we interpret our experience in order to be consistent with the concept.
The "benevolent" aspects of the agendas are the vector by which the other memetic ideas infect the host attendants. Most will kick you out if you start challenging the other ideas that are included alongside of the "benevolent" ones.
besides, I would hardly call the ideas "benevolent" if I first have to believe I've committed mortal sins and require saving from those sins. In essence it attacks the self-esteem in order to get you to buy into the idea of being redeemed.
It is the nature of skeptical inquiry to erode the belief system. It can hardly be called a "religion" if there is no belief system being promoted and no dogma being encouraged to be bought into. In this case apriori definitions are sufficient and complete empirical investigation is unnecessary.
Can you think of any organization which would be accurately described as a "religion" which encouraged each person be skeptical of all beliefs, to challenge them and erode them? This would include challenging and skeptically investigating whatever tenets were the foundation of forming the organization.
Even if you could only reduce the idea of a religion to a family of resemblances such an organization (assuming it lived up to its own ideals) would hardly resemble any cluster of things which we could label "religion".
There is a kind of agenda to which all churches and religion can be lumped under, and that is the discouragement of skeptical inquiry in favor of promoting an unverifiable belief system. I suspect that is what the GP meant in indicating they have an "agenda".
While it is true every entity which has a desire also has the agenda to fulfill that desire, when someone highlights the existence of an agenda within a class of entities, they are carving out a set of agendas which are typical among class members and atypical for entities outside the class.
It is a common speech act (see the field of pragmatics) that when a universal attribute is invoked to describe a particular set in contrast to its complement, the nuance of meaning shifts to highlight the distinguishing features which are universal among and contribute to the classification of the set members.
Just re-read the second amendment. The sentence structure is obtuse, but I finally see the interpretation of it that you have put forward and agree it states that in order to have militias to protect the people, the people shall need to be armed. Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't read it that way yet, but that is clearly how it is meant. As an aside, I often wonder how the constitution might have been written differently if the founders had lived in the modern era, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Bombs which can level city blocks, are these considered arms and a right which shall not be infringed?
Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy. If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation. Depending on if your state and the state the other party is in are two or one party states it is a moot point.
Unless the person is using speaker phone, the guy or gal on the other end of the line can't be heard. But a man-in-the-middle would hear the other person. As for texting, I do have an expectation of privacy as the viewing of the screen is typically limited to just me.
It is a legal problem. The Second Amendment is perfectly clear — keeping and bearing arms is a right. Any and all laws imposing licensing requirements turn that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) into a privilege (to be granted and withdrawn by the Executive), are just that: Unconstitutional.
That may or may not be so. I tend to like it, however.
Can you define for me what a "well regulated malitia" is and how the general populace passing a background check for gun ownership is sufficient to constitute a well regulated militia?
It is easy to be anonymous when nobody cares who you are. If he were a celebrity with public interest, a very different result would occur.