As a Christian, that is a VERY good question that I wrestle with personally. I really wished you had logged in so I could continue a meaningful dialogue. I hope you see this.
Many Christians will argue with me, but I assert this one very rigid and profound rule: "Free Will" and "Omniscience" are completely incompatible notions: If I truly have free will, then no one can possibly know for sure what my next choice will be. And if you do know for certain what my choices will be, then I have no free will; I am bound by some complicated script that must play out.
Well, I personally choose to believe that I am not bound by a script. I choose to believe that I have free will, and that there really can be some randomness to life. And here's why I believe this:
As a Christian, we believe that our purpose in life, the reason we were created, was to glorify God and to have a personal relationship with him. Is it really even possible to have a relationship with someone whom you know every single answer they will say? That would be really boring. It'd be about as much fun as having a chat with Eliza the chat bot.
So, if I must have free will, then I must also re-define the meaning of "omniscience" just a wee little bit.
Perhaps omniscience doesn't mean that one knows the precise outcome of the entire game. Perhaps life is a little more like a Choose-Your-Own Adventure Book. Remember, where you read down to the bottom of the page, and it says something like, "If you choose the Red Door, turn to page 141. If you choose the White Door, turn to page 35."
Well, what if instead, God had all of the pages memorized, he knew where every choice led, what page led to what page, and what outcome, and additionally... because he knows us so well, he could statistically guess what choices we would make at any given moment in our lives?
YET... there needed to exist a random element for the game to be fun. Maybe you might accidentally slip and fall. Maybe you might mess up when singing that song on stage. Maybe you might accidentally oversleep and get fired from your job. Little things no one could predict, just little random variances that aren't in your normal behavior, but are necessary to "randomize the plan" just a bit.
In that way, it appears to me, it is the only way that a God can be "omniscient" and I still have some form of "free will."
You're just shifting the energy cost to the customer, and if (for example) you have two customers that are neighbors, you just doubled your inefficiency because you essentially required two delivery trips where one would have sufficed by delivery route.
UPS/FedEx generally have an efficient route. I know in my neighborhood, I can guess when the UPS man is going to drive by, everyday.
What kind of hardware did you try Windows 7 with Audition on?
When you say 48 channels, are you saying you're recording 48 channels simultaneously? Or just assigning them? At what bit-depth and sample rate? Were they mono or stereo?
May I ask how or why you came to need that many channels?
Even closer to the point, Thayer's Quest, another laser disc game. Thayer's Quest actually paused a long long time for you to type responses and choose directions. It really was "choose-your-own-adventure."
I have a small recording studio in which I run a 16-channel simultaneous recording firewire mixer. I use Adobe Audition 3 for my sessions. I can't really move to another platform because I already have so many recording sessions in this format (although, I don't really want to move, either -- I'm happy with Audition).
I recently purchased an i7 with Windows 7 64-bit. I tell you, it does everything I've ever asked it to do, and it handles the incoming 16-channels flawlessly.
I don't think I would trust this set up on Ubuntu. For one, my firewire mixer simply would not work with Ubuntu (natively). And if it could work in WINE, I don't see how it is better than what I have now. Isn't it just likely to introduce hiccups?
Unless Lucas has registered "Jedi" as a trademark and used it, Lucas hasn't a leg to stand on other than they have money and can be an expensive nuisance. Just because you invented a word in a book or movie doesn't mean it is your trademark (unless you're using it AS a trademark, or it is the title of your book or movie).
If Lucas Arts had a game called "Jedi Mind", then they have a case because it is software. Otherwise, they got nuthin'.
If they have registered it as a trademark, then here's your test for infringement:
1. Similarity of the conflicting marks; 2. Relatedness or proximity of the two companies; 3. Strength of the senior users mark; 4. Marketing channels used; 5. Degree of care likely to be used by purchasers in selecting the goods; 6. The "second comers" intent in selecting its mark; 7. Evidence of actual confusion; 8. Likelihood of expansion in product lines
And that's all finally decided by a judge and jury.
I wonder if Kurzweil is being misunderstood here. Would not most of you agree that an entire person is described by the genetic data contained withing one stem cell? Or at least within one sperm cell and one egg cell? Then why is it difficult to believe that the blueprint could be easily describable and compressed in a few million bytes? And if its possible to do this, then why would it not be possible to create some kind of molecular emulator that can emulate reconstructing a living thing from this blueprint?
I can imagine a computer program that emulates molecular interactions. I can imagine that this program that has a DNA blueprint for an entire person. Basically then, give the program the correct inputs (food, oxygen, water) and necessary outputs (waste), and see what the computer program produces. Now speed the whole process up because you're doing it in software.
You may not get an adult human, but you might get a 9-month old fetus. I just don't know.
If the above is possible, then it becomes possible to play around and experiment with a "live" human brain being emulated in software.
Why is this hard to fathom?
I know, we're talking about a monster piece of computing power to be able to do anything near that right now. But why is it beyond our understanding?
And why couldn't he? At one time he had both the House and the Senate in his hip pocket. Answer: Every day more and more people don't like him, and they are trusting him and his administration less and less. Because if they did, it might matter when Obama campaigns for a running Democrat. Now a running Democrat doesn't want him anywhere near their campaigns because he is a negative force -- especially in conservative areas. This is the truth.
* Can string a sentence together without making up words or stumbling over words with more than one syllable.
and he needs a teleprompter to do it...
* Has not prematurely announced 'mission accomplished' when the mission is barely started.
Aside from the fact that he hasn't actually accomplished anything, he did get the Nobel Peace Prize for... what was it again?
* Actually seems to give a shit about health-care for other-than-the-rich.
Which healthcare bill are you reading? Because mine sure has a lot of pork in it. For the rich.
Obama vs Cheny:
* Thus far at least, he hasn't shot anyone in the face, and then had the victim apologise (!)
Hey I'll give credit where credit is due.
* Doesn't, to my knowledge, keep a man-sized safe in his office. Always been curious about the 'man-sized' thing...
I'm not even sure what your point is.
* Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.
OK, completely wrong. Obama even said during his campaign that he would close Guantanomo bay. Well??? Why hasn't he? The fact that he hasn't makes it just as much fault as Bush/Cheney.
Wrong: an ellipses ends a sentence... An exclamation point ends a sentence! A question mark ends a sentence? A semi-colon ends a sentence; A double-quote ends a "sentence." (A parenthesis ends a sentence.) And all still require two spaces after each. Also: a colon does NOT end a sentence, and it still requires two spaces after it. That HTML is broken is irrelevant.
Out of the blue, he tells me that his brand-new Toyota Rav4 accelerated 3 times without his foot being on the accelerator (because it was on the brakes standing at stop signs). Each time he's been at a stop for some time, and the car just revs spontaneously.
I am skeptical (as are you).
He takes it in to have it looked at by the Toyota service (which find nothing).
Then 2 months later, we start hearing reports about this in the news......and you'd have me believe it's just driver error?
Aw, c'mon.... really? You don't even have room to fit it in the realm of possibility?
Yes, but additionally, I can completely understand how even the braking system could be affected by the same or similar problem.
It's been said that the brakes can override the acceleration, but think about a system that is controlled by the computer.
It's also been said that the braking system isn't controlled by the computer.
But what about anti-lock brakes? What about when you put the hazard lights on? (flashes same tail lights) Or when the alarm goes off? (flashes tail lights)
I don't think brakes are completely isolated and manual as thought. But I'm no expert and I could be wrong. I just can open my mind to the possibility.
My father-in-law (not my uncle) said the brakes worked fine in his case. It was the engine that revved suddenly and violently without stepping on the accelerator.
However, you must do more to convince me that the brakes are independent of computer/electrical control.
The hazard switch controls the same brake light bulb. The alarm system controls the same brake light bulb. The anti-lock breaks certainly control pressure to the brakes. It's reasonable to believe that all of those systems are influenced by the computer in some way. And if that's the case, it's completely reasonable to see how a failure is at least possible.
So, while I'm not a Toyota mechanic, I really don't think it's as simple and isolated system as you imply.
I'm not a mechanic. I don't own a Toyota. So I don't know. But I do know that the same bulb is also controlled by the hazard switch and also the burglar alarm system. So I can't possibly believe that the brake light system is completely disassociated from the computer or some other electrical system that can override it coming on or off.
And this is not what I'd consider "most conventional vehicles" but that's just me.
The man tells me a weird thing happens to him 3 times - that the car just suddenly revs the engine without warning. He insists he had his foot nowhere near the accelerator. He takes the car into Toyota twice to have it looked at, but find nothing.
Then a couple of months later, we see news stories of Toyotas inexplicably revving their engines (as well as other symptoms).
Now, it's a company car and so he has no real say-so in getting a different one.
So here we have an experienced driver with no previous story of this sort with any other car he's driven, and you're expecting me to believe that he is possibly incredible?
You're the kind of person who dismisses anecdotal evidence and cannot trust a human testimony since it doesn't fit your body of evidence.
Please consider that your evidence is incomplete as of now.
The fact that I know my father-in-law, and that he described this exact problem before it ever came out in the news completely nullifies your argument to me. It won't for you, because you don't have that experience. (It's unique to me.)
A failure in the sensor of the accelerator or brake could easily explain the symptom he described, and yet would not show up in any log because the failure happened before that part of the system.
You're right, human error does explain some of them. But to completely rule out the possibility that there really is a dangerous underlying problem is just foolish.
Did you even read what I wrote? He said the car revved violently. Without touching the accelerator. He had the brakes on. Cars do not (and should not) normally do this.
Yes, I totally noticed how the taking over of the banking, insurance and auto industries was a totally conservative move. As well as a health care plan that supposedly will pay for everyone. That seems really conservative me. Apologizing to the world for America really also seems like something a conservative would do. Oh, passing more tax increases on middle-class Americans than any other president in history (also, very conservative). The whole Cap and Trade -- EXTREMELY conservative. And, let's look at his voting record as a senator. Let's see, he seems to favor abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action -- all perfectly conservative ideals. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty -- all dirty little liberal thingies, thus demonstrating his conservatism.
Slashdot Mirror
As a Christian, that is a VERY good question that I wrestle with personally. I really wished you had logged in so I could continue a meaningful dialogue. I hope you see this.
Many Christians will argue with me, but I assert this one very rigid and profound rule: "Free Will" and "Omniscience" are completely incompatible notions: If I truly have free will, then no one can possibly know for sure what my next choice will be. And if you do know for certain what my choices will be, then I have no free will; I am bound by some complicated script that must play out.
Well, I personally choose to believe that I am not bound by a script. I choose to believe that I have free will, and that there really can be some randomness to life. And here's why I believe this:
As a Christian, we believe that our purpose in life, the reason we were created, was to glorify God and to have a personal relationship with him. Is it really even possible to have a relationship with someone whom you know every single answer they will say? That would be really boring. It'd be about as much fun as having a chat with Eliza the chat bot.
So, if I must have free will, then I must also re-define the meaning of "omniscience" just a wee little bit.
Perhaps omniscience doesn't mean that one knows the precise outcome of the entire game. Perhaps life is a little more like a Choose-Your-Own Adventure Book. Remember, where you read down to the bottom of the page, and it says something like, "If you choose the Red Door, turn to page 141. If you choose the White Door, turn to page 35."
Well, what if instead, God had all of the pages memorized, he knew where every choice led, what page led to what page, and what outcome, and additionally... because he knows us so well, he could statistically guess what choices we would make at any given moment in our lives?
YET... there needed to exist a random element for the game to be fun. Maybe you might accidentally slip and fall. Maybe you might mess up when singing that song on stage. Maybe you might accidentally oversleep and get fired from your job. Little things no one could predict, just little random variances that aren't in your normal behavior, but are necessary to "randomize the plan" just a bit.
In that way, it appears to me, it is the only way that a God can be "omniscient" and I still have some form of "free will."
And that is what I believe.
No. That wouldn't help.
You're just shifting the energy cost to the customer, and if (for example) you have two customers that are neighbors, you just doubled your inefficiency because you essentially required two delivery trips where one would have sufficed by delivery route.
UPS/FedEx generally have an efficient route. I know in my neighborhood, I can guess when the UPS man is going to drive by, everyday.
I am interested in what you have to say.
What kind of hardware did you try Windows 7 with Audition on?
When you say 48 channels, are you saying you're recording 48 channels simultaneously? Or just assigning them? At what bit-depth and sample rate? Were they mono or stereo?
May I ask how or why you came to need that many channels?
Even closer to the point, Thayer's Quest, another laser disc game. Thayer's Quest actually paused a long long time for you to type responses and choose directions. It really was "choose-your-own-adventure."
I have a small recording studio in which I run a 16-channel simultaneous recording firewire mixer. I use Adobe Audition 3 for my sessions. I can't really move to another platform because I already have so many recording sessions in this format (although, I don't really want to move, either -- I'm happy with Audition).
I recently purchased an i7 with Windows 7 64-bit. I tell you, it does everything I've ever asked it to do, and it handles the incoming 16-channels flawlessly.
I don't think I would trust this set up on Ubuntu. For one, my firewire mixer simply would not work with Ubuntu (natively). And if it could work in WINE, I don't see how it is better than what I have now. Isn't it just likely to introduce hiccups?
Used to be an IP Paralegal.
Unless Lucas has registered "Jedi" as a trademark and used it, Lucas hasn't a leg to stand on other than they have money and can be an expensive nuisance. Just because you invented a word in a book or movie doesn't mean it is your trademark (unless you're using it AS a trademark, or it is the title of your book or movie).
If Lucas Arts had a game called "Jedi Mind", then they have a case because it is software. Otherwise, they got nuthin'.
If they have registered it as a trademark, then here's your test for infringement:
1. Similarity of the conflicting marks;
2. Relatedness or proximity of the two companies;
3. Strength of the senior users mark;
4. Marketing channels used;
5. Degree of care likely to be used by purchasers in selecting the goods;
6. The "second comers" intent in selecting its mark;
7. Evidence of actual confusion;
8. Likelihood of expansion in product lines
And that's all finally decided by a judge and jury.
Pretty good post, but I have to mark off points because you didn't use a car analogy.
I wonder if Kurzweil is being misunderstood here. Would not most of you agree that an entire person is described by the genetic data contained withing one stem cell? Or at least within one sperm cell and one egg cell? Then why is it difficult to believe that the blueprint could be easily describable and compressed in a few million bytes? And if its possible to do this, then why would it not be possible to create some kind of molecular emulator that can emulate reconstructing a living thing from this blueprint?
I can imagine a computer program that emulates molecular interactions. I can imagine that this program that has a DNA blueprint for an entire person. Basically then, give the program the correct inputs (food, oxygen, water) and necessary outputs (waste), and see what the computer program produces. Now speed the whole process up because you're doing it in software.
You may not get an adult human, but you might get a 9-month old fetus. I just don't know.
If the above is possible, then it becomes possible to play around and experiment with a "live" human brain being emulated in software.
Why is this hard to fathom?
I know, we're talking about a monster piece of computing power to be able to do anything near that right now. But why is it beyond our understanding?
Error in logic. If I hand you a sack of shit, and you don't get rid of it, you have no one to blame but yourself for stinking.
And why couldn't he? At one time he had both the House and the Senate in his hip pocket. Answer: Every day more and more people don't like him, and they are trusting him and his administration less and less. Because if they did, it might matter when Obama campaigns for a running Democrat. Now a running Democrat doesn't want him anywhere near their campaigns because he is a negative force -- especially in conservative areas. This is the truth.
Obviously you haven't thought this through:
Obama vs Bush:
* Can string a sentence together without making up words or stumbling over words with more than one syllable.
and he needs a teleprompter to do it...
* Has not prematurely announced 'mission accomplished' when the mission is barely started.
Aside from the fact that he hasn't actually accomplished anything, he did get the Nobel Peace Prize for... what was it again?
* Actually seems to give a shit about health-care for other-than-the-rich.
Which healthcare bill are you reading? Because mine sure has a lot of pork in it. For the rich.
Obama vs Cheny:
* Thus far at least, he hasn't shot anyone in the face, and then had the victim apologise (!)
Hey I'll give credit where credit is due.
* Doesn't, to my knowledge, keep a man-sized safe in his office. Always been curious about the 'man-sized' thing...
I'm not even sure what your point is.
* Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.
OK, completely wrong. Obama even said during his campaign that he would close Guantanomo bay. Well??? Why hasn't he? The fact that he hasn't makes it just as much fault as Bush/Cheney.
And when has logic ever had anything to do with typesetting/grammatical rules?
For example, the rule is that the period always goes inside the quote. But what if you're quoting a password? Is the period part of the quote or not?
>I said, my password is "this.and.that."
Is there an actual extra period or not? I argue that logically it should be:
>I said, my password is "this.and.that".
Now it is clear what the password is.
But no matter what I think, it isn't the rule!
Wrong: an ellipses ends a sentence... An exclamation point ends a sentence! A question mark ends a sentence? A semi-colon ends a sentence; A double-quote ends a "sentence." (A parenthesis ends a sentence.) And all still require two spaces after each. Also: a colon does NOT end a sentence, and it still requires two spaces after it. That HTML is broken is irrelevant.
No it isn't; I'm turning it o[CARRIER LOST]
I suspect you probably work for the government. Maybe the military. Probably the DMV even. Those guys have NO sense of humor whatsoever!
Look, you can believe me/him or not if you want.
But here are the facts:
- He told me this happened to him in his brand-new Rav4 3 times while sitting at a stop while his foot was nowhere near the accelerator.
- Two months later, we start hearing reports about it on the news.
- I do not perceive my father-in-law to be a clueless idiot.
Thus, for me it gives credibility to others' similar stories.
Here's why it's sort of a ridiculous suggestion:
Out of the blue, he tells me that his brand-new Toyota Rav4 accelerated 3 times without his foot being on the accelerator (because it was on the brakes standing at stop signs). Each time he's been at a stop for some time, and the car just revs spontaneously.
I am skeptical (as are you).
He takes it in to have it looked at by the Toyota service (which find nothing).
Then 2 months later, we start hearing reports about this in the news... ...and you'd have me believe it's just driver error?
Aw, c'mon.... really? You don't even have room to fit it in the realm of possibility?
Yes, but additionally, I can completely understand how even the braking system could be affected by the same or similar problem.
It's been said that the brakes can override the acceleration, but think about a system that is controlled by the computer.
It's also been said that the braking system isn't controlled by the computer.
But what about anti-lock brakes? What about when you put the hazard lights on? (flashes same tail lights) Or when the alarm goes off? (flashes tail lights)
I don't think brakes are completely isolated and manual as thought. But I'm no expert and I could be wrong. I just can open my mind to the possibility.
No, not really in my mind. Happens 3 times to him? Before any news in the media about it? Never happened before to him in any other vehicle?
C'mon, there's just no way.
I can't explain how or why it happened, just telling you that he told me this story before it ever popped up in the news.
That is significant to me and gives some credibility to everyone else who tells a similar story.
My father-in-law (not my uncle) said the brakes worked fine in his case. It was the engine that revved suddenly and violently without stepping on the accelerator.
However, you must do more to convince me that the brakes are independent of computer/electrical control.
The hazard switch controls the same brake light bulb. The alarm system controls the same brake light bulb. The anti-lock breaks certainly control pressure to the brakes. It's reasonable to believe that all of those systems are influenced by the computer in some way. And if that's the case, it's completely reasonable to see how a failure is at least possible.
So, while I'm not a Toyota mechanic, I really don't think it's as simple and isolated system as you imply.
I'm not a mechanic. I don't own a Toyota. So I don't know. But I do know that the same bulb is also controlled by the hazard switch and also the burglar alarm system. So I can't possibly believe that the brake light system is completely disassociated from the computer or some other electrical system that can override it coming on or off.
And this is not what I'd consider "most conventional vehicles" but that's just me.
Look, it's really quite simple.
The man tells me a weird thing happens to him 3 times - that the car just suddenly revs the engine without warning. He insists he had his foot nowhere near the accelerator. He takes the car into Toyota twice to have it looked at, but find nothing.
Then a couple of months later, we see news stories of Toyotas inexplicably revving their engines (as well as other symptoms).
Now, it's a company car and so he has no real say-so in getting a different one.
So here we have an experienced driver with no previous story of this sort with any other car he's driven, and you're expecting me to believe that he is possibly incredible?
That's preposterous!
You're the kind of person who dismisses anecdotal evidence and cannot trust a human testimony since it doesn't fit your body of evidence.
Please consider that your evidence is incomplete as of now.
The fact that I know my father-in-law, and that he described this exact problem before it ever came out in the news completely nullifies your argument to me. It won't for you, because you don't have that experience. (It's unique to me.)
A failure in the sensor of the accelerator or brake could easily explain the symptom he described, and yet would not show up in any log because the failure happened before that part of the system.
You're right, human error does explain some of them. But to completely rule out the possibility that there really is a dangerous underlying problem is just foolish.
Did you even read what I wrote? He said the car revved violently. Without touching the accelerator. He had the brakes on. Cars do not (and should not) normally do this.
Yes, I totally noticed how the taking over of the banking, insurance and auto industries was a totally conservative move. As well as a health care plan that supposedly will pay for everyone. That seems really conservative me. Apologizing to the world for America really also seems like something a conservative would do. Oh, passing more tax increases on middle-class Americans than any other president in history (also, very conservative). The whole Cap and Trade -- EXTREMELY conservative. And, let's look at his voting record as a senator. Let's see, he seems to favor abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action -- all perfectly conservative ideals. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty -- all dirty little liberal thingies, thus demonstrating his conservatism.
Yup! I totally see your point.