As I said, if one believes in the laws of physics (and as a physicist, I am inclined to do so:-) then everything is deterministic and free will in one sense cannot exist.
Strange way to begin.. if one disbelieves the laws of physics, they still continue to exist and function. And the universe is built on quantum mechanics, which states that everything is random. In which case free will cannot exist. But why is randomness even part of this discussion? Must a system be partially random to have any sense of free will? If a deterministic system lacks free will and a random system lacks free will, how can a combination of these ever have any kind of free will? Perhaps this sense of "free will" comes from somewhere else?
Are human[s] in any defensible sense what you seem to be asserting, semantic decision trees? Personally, I'd have to say no.
As a human yourself, of course you'd say that. But some people consider their computer to have free will based on the times it "chooses" to help vs. hinder. This is an illusion of course, because we know precisely how computer work. But it's understandable given the vast numbers of inputs that affect a computer's state. Perhaps a human's "free will" is equally an illusion?
For one thing, at the hardware level they are NNs, and NNs per se have no idea what the number "seven" is no matter how accurately they can identify it or what they are trained to do with it. Humans, however, can manipulate their OWN NNs to do computations based on the notion of "seven-ness" completely independent of its neural representation or lack (of a unique one) thereof.
This doesn't seem to follow. If humans are neural networks (I assume the meaning of "NN") and humans can be conscious of the meaning of "seven", then by definition neural networks can do the same.
At no point can any NN I've ever heard of be said to comprehend "sevenness".
Sure there is, you've just identified it -- it's your own brain. If you mean you've never heard of a *manufactured* NN with that ability, then that may merely point to the shortcomings of human engineering rather than any intrinsic problem with neural networks.
In the meantime, as I said, in an HI you are stuck trying to explain the decision either heuristically (which fails if you examine it too closely/microscopically)..
I disagree. Every decision can be ultimately be traced to a fundamental desire that is not based on logic, but is coded into your organic being. You have no choice in these desires; some were programmed into you before you were born, and some developed as you grew.
But perhaps we argue the same point. What you call a "failure" would be decision that exists with no backing logic. But perhaps this "decision" is really just one of your core desires.
My dog is itching itself across the room. A potential decision looms...
Ok, let's work through this.
... do I a) do something about it; or b) keep typing. Huge semantic trees open out from this simple binary choice, most of which ignore enormous parts of the phase space involved, such as doing neither and getting myself another cold beer instead or farting. The decision is not entirely semantic -- I'm not ever going to work through most of the complete decision tree, any more than a chess master actually thinks about all possible moves and all of the outcomes of all of those moves and (iterate to checkmate). I will prune that tree, instantly and without thinking. How I prune the tree is another decision, but it is not one I can make semantically, or I have a self-referential problem -- how do I decide how to prune the decision tree without considering all of the possible prunings, leading me right back to my original problem?
Well, there is one small difference. With an AI, one can always, precisely, deconstruct why and how the system makes the decision that it makes,...
Effectively untrue, as AI systems are so complex as to be impossible to analyze.
With a human intelligence (HI), one cannot ever deconstruct why and how the system makes the decision that it makes.
Also untrue. Psychology and psychiatry specialize in helping people find the reasons for their actions. Just because you don't know the reason doesn't mean there isn't one.
But this is a bad criteria anyway. I can build you a computer that behaves like a human -- if you pause the system, the chips wipe. And chip communications is encrypted so as to be unreadable. Now this computer behaves like your "human intelligence" -- any AI running on it can not be analyzed. Does it now have free will?
Chocolate or Vanilla ice cream today? "Chocolate because I like chocolate more than vanilla" is ultimately semantically null,..
Just because you don't understand the logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps you want chocolate today because it contains some nutrients your body needs right now. This is in fact the theory behind the unusual cravings that pregnant women have.
On the contrary, this is great for the other forms of renewable energy, since it allows mining (and on an unrelated topic, farming) to be powered from renewable energy. Manufacturing is powered by electricity, which can come from anywhere.
While it might seem strange to convert energy into liquid gas, natural sources of gas are limited, and will eventually run out. Solar is effectively unlimited. Even nuclear is effectively unlimited. (By "effectively" I mean they're technically limited, but there is literally billions of years of energy available from those sources.)
Yes, this does sound like snake oil from a thermodynamic point of view.
This isn't snake oil, this is oil oil. This is exactly what those green plants outside your window do. In fact, this is precisely what the green in those plants do -- turn water, CO2 and sunlight into sugar. Ever eat an apple? That sweet flavor is from the sugars in the apple, which were made for you from "thin air" by that very apple tree.
Your body is basically a fuel cell, combining sugar and oxygen and converting the released energy into chemicals your body can use. The waste product is the original CO2 and water.
BTW what we know as oil is the result of hundreds of millions of years of dead plants, squeezed and cooked by the earth for hundreds of millions more. So even oil is ultimately a form of solar power. It took millions of years to create but we're using it up in hundreds, so it's not sustainable.
Because the writer is smart enough to shop the script around to different publishers, as well as investigate self-publish options. The writer will take the first best deal that comes along.
As for why publish new stuff at all, that's a general problem not related to copyright. If customers want new stuff, then the publisher will have no choice but to provide. And if they want old stuff, then writers have a marketing problem.
No-one else will make a deal with Ms Moss under better terms for book 5 because they can't do the group deal for books 2-4. I can negotiate Ms Moss down to almost nothing. I can keep printing book 1 and pay her nothing.
Then how do you propose to get her to write book 5? After the success of books 1-4, shes going to demand alot of money, and indeed you as a publisher will make alot of money off of her established name.
If you don't pay up, she won't write. And if she doesn't write, the value of books 3 and 4, which are under copyright, will fall.
What'll likely happen is the price of book 5 will be higher than the other books. But that's OK, there's no reason all books need to be the same price.
For someone who wants a smartphone as an upgrade from the combination of a dumbphone and PDA but isn't yet ready to pay $336 more per year, what U.S. carrier do you recommend? T-Mobile?
You already have it. Data plans are expensive, and there's no way around it. Price are coming down, but if you want cell data, you'll have to pay. If you don't want to pay, then stick with WiFi.
Sure, why not. The Library of Congress is 10 TB nominal (which is wrong, but whatever) so 1 LoC = 160 iPads. The Osborne 1 is 26.2 lbs and 2527 ci vs. the iPad's 1.46 lb and 25.7 ci, so it's 18 iPads by weight, and 10 iPads by volume.
Slashdot Mirror
Organic doesn't mean alive, it means it was grown without pesticides and manufactured without preservatives.
As I said, if one believes in the laws of physics (and as a physicist, I am inclined to do so:-) then everything is deterministic and free will in one sense cannot exist.
Strange way to begin .. if one disbelieves the laws of physics, they still continue to exist and function. And the universe is built on quantum mechanics, which states that everything is random. In which case free will cannot exist. But why is randomness even part of this discussion? Must a system be partially random to have any sense of free will? If a deterministic system lacks free will and a random system lacks free will, how can a combination of these ever have any kind of free will? Perhaps this sense of "free will" comes from somewhere else?
Are human[s] in any defensible sense what you seem to be asserting, semantic decision trees? Personally, I'd have to say no.
As a human yourself, of course you'd say that. But some people consider their computer to have free will based on the times it "chooses" to help vs. hinder. This is an illusion of course, because we know precisely how computer work. But it's understandable given the vast numbers of inputs that affect a computer's state. Perhaps a human's "free will" is equally an illusion?
For one thing, at the hardware level they are NNs, and NNs per se have no idea what the number "seven" is no matter how accurately they can identify it or what they are trained to do with it. Humans, however, can manipulate their OWN NNs to do computations based on the notion of "seven-ness" completely independent of its neural representation or lack (of a unique one) thereof.
This doesn't seem to follow. If humans are neural networks (I assume the meaning of "NN") and humans can be conscious of the meaning of "seven", then by definition neural networks can do the same.
At no point can any NN I've ever heard of be said to comprehend "sevenness".
Sure there is, you've just identified it -- it's your own brain. If you mean you've never heard of a *manufactured* NN with that ability, then that may merely point to the shortcomings of human engineering rather than any intrinsic problem with neural networks.
In the meantime, as I said, in an HI you are stuck trying to explain the decision either heuristically (which fails if you examine it too closely/microscopically) ..
I disagree. Every decision can be ultimately be traced to a fundamental desire that is not based on logic, but is coded into your organic being. You have no choice in these desires; some were programmed into you before you were born, and some developed as you grew.
But perhaps we argue the same point. What you call a "failure" would be decision that exists with no backing logic. But perhaps this "decision" is really just one of your core desires.
My dog is itching itself across the room. A potential decision looms ...
Ok, let's work through this.
... do I a) do something about it; or b) keep typing. Huge semantic trees open out from this simple binary choice, most of which ignore enormous parts of the phase space involved, such as doing neither and getting myself another cold beer instead or farting. The decision is not entirely semantic -- I'm not ever going to work through most of the complete decision tree, any more than a chess master actually thinks about all possible moves and all of the outcomes of all of those moves and (iterate to checkmate). I will prune that tree, instantly and without thinking. How I prune the tree is another decision, but it is not one I can make semantically, or I have a self-referential problem -- how do I decide how to prune the decision tree without considering all of the possible prunings, leading me right back to my original problem?
For
Sounds like Life and Death right up there at the top of this discussion.
Well, there is one small difference. With an AI, one can always, precisely, deconstruct why and how the system makes the decision that it makes, ...
Effectively untrue, as AI systems are so complex as to be impossible to analyze.
With a human intelligence (HI), one cannot ever deconstruct why and how the system makes the decision that it makes.
Also untrue. Psychology and psychiatry specialize in helping people find the reasons for their actions. Just because you don't know the reason doesn't mean there isn't one.
But this is a bad criteria anyway. I can build you a computer that behaves like a human -- if you pause the system, the chips wipe. And chip communications is encrypted so as to be unreadable. Now this computer behaves like your "human intelligence" -- any AI running on it can not be analyzed. Does it now have free will?
Chocolate or Vanilla ice cream today? "Chocolate because I like chocolate more than vanilla" is ultimately semantically null, ..
Just because you don't understand the logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps you want chocolate today because it contains some nutrients your body needs right now. This is in fact the theory behind the unusual cravings that pregnant women have.
Does anyone know why this project is stalling so much?
Cuz it's run by a Stall-man?
Wait, child care? You "care" for your children with those? I can't help but think you're doing something wrong ...
Why, that's Eddie Izzard! I'd recognize him anywhere.
People like you are fucking tools.
I can't tell if that's adjective-noun or verb-noun. I guess the meaning is the same either way.
But a hell of a lot worse than Amiga DOS.
Are you sure it's his tongue? Might be the antenna. They're not supposed to be visible, but some people have bad reactions to the materials.
Put an Android emulator on your iPhone, and you'll be good to go.
What flavor of Finn? Huckleberry?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
On an unrelated note, "fuck all" is two words.
Well, the iPhone is based on BSD Unix and Android is based on Linux, so fscking is arguably a good thing..
On the contrary, this is great for the other forms of renewable energy, since it allows mining (and on an unrelated topic, farming) to be powered from renewable energy. Manufacturing is powered by electricity, which can come from anywhere.
While it might seem strange to convert energy into liquid gas, natural sources of gas are limited, and will eventually run out. Solar is effectively unlimited. Even nuclear is effectively unlimited. (By "effectively" I mean they're technically limited, but there is literally billions of years of energy available from those sources.)
Yes, this does sound like snake oil from a thermodynamic point of view.
This isn't snake oil, this is oil oil. This is exactly what those green plants outside your window do. In fact, this is precisely what the green in those plants do -- turn water, CO2 and sunlight into sugar. Ever eat an apple? That sweet flavor is from the sugars in the apple, which were made for you from "thin air" by that very apple tree.
Your body is basically a fuel cell, combining sugar and oxygen and converting the released energy into chemicals your body can use. The waste product is the original CO2 and water.
BTW what we know as oil is the result of hundreds of millions of years of dead plants, squeezed and cooked by the earth for hundreds of millions more. So even oil is ultimately a form of solar power. It took millions of years to create but we're using it up in hundreds, so it's not sustainable.
.. So the proper name is "big anecdote"?
Virgin is Sprint's pay-as-you-go arm. Sprint doesn't need to discount; that what Virgin is for.
Because the writer is smart enough to shop the script around to different publishers, as well as investigate self-publish options. The writer will take the first best deal that comes along.
As for why publish new stuff at all, that's a general problem not related to copyright. If customers want new stuff, then the publisher will have no choice but to provide. And if they want old stuff, then writers have a marketing problem.
No-one else will make a deal with Ms Moss under better terms for book 5 because they can't do the group deal for books 2-4. I can negotiate Ms Moss down to almost nothing. I can keep printing book 1 and pay her nothing.
Then how do you propose to get her to write book 5? After the success of books 1-4, shes going to demand alot of money, and indeed you as a publisher will make alot of money off of her established name.
If you don't pay up, she won't write. And if she doesn't write, the value of books 3 and 4, which are under copyright, will fall.
What'll likely happen is the price of book 5 will be higher than the other books. But that's OK, there's no reason all books need to be the same price.
The drive is not called "G:", it's called "Google:". Only works on Amiga.
For someone who wants a smartphone as an upgrade from the combination of a dumbphone and PDA but isn't yet ready to pay $336 more per year, what U.S. carrier do you recommend? T-Mobile?
You already have it. Data plans are expensive, and there's no way around it. Price are coming down, but if you want cell data, you'll have to pay. If you don't want to pay, then stick with WiFi.
Sure, why not. The Library of Congress is 10 TB nominal (which is wrong, but whatever) so 1 LoC = 160 iPads. The Osborne 1 is 26.2 lbs and 2527 ci vs. the iPad's 1.46 lb and 25.7 ci, so it's 18 iPads by weight, and 10 iPads by volume.
On Feb 71 you party with the people who copied the digits, and on Feb 72 you party with the ones who rounded.
To be fair, Ralph's is expensive. Out of four large chains in the area (California), only one (Stater's) is reasonably priced.
Did someone create a perpetual motion machine?
Yeah, that's the other energy article today.