The sloppy posting is due to my lack of posting on sites that require you to supply your own linebreak tags by default. I post on slashdot so rarely now, I'm not used ot it.
This is a red herring. You can make the same problem for a computer -- one where there is not enough fuel in the universe for the computer to computer the solution. This is how modern cryptography works.
Thats not a red hearing, thats exactly why brains, just like all other real computers (and unlike turing machines with their infinite tape) are finite, and have finite limits on what they can do.
Nobody is claiming that the human mind is infinite. All I'm saying is that I and others (including some really smart famous philosophers) have concluded, based on Geodels' theorem, that turing machines and minds are qualitatively different things.
Well, Godel claimed that either humans were not emulateable by turing machines or that other thing was true. I don't know the other thing, but IIRC penrose talked about magical quantum computers with time-traveling bits inside the brain, so Its kind of hard to take that sort of thing seriously.
Universal Turing machines cannot be debugged on other UTMs. This is known as the CRASHING problem, similar to the HALTING problem, but less commonly known.
You don't even seem to know that the "electrical charge" is ionic
Well, I did know that. (sodium and potassium ions) Did you expect me to regurgitate every single thing I know in every single post? Off the top of my head I can list several neurotransmitters, dopamine, various endomorphines and endocanabinoids, nitric oxide, serotonin, acetylcholine, GABA, Substance P, etc. (adrenaline is more of a hormone) I learned far more, but I don't remember every single one since I'm not a biologist.
You don't seem to know that DSPs signal by changing the electrical charge between the inside and outside of the chips - or that they're made of transistors.
And you don't seem to know there is a difference between "A transistor" and "transistors" like transistors arranged into a DSP, which would behave differently then a single transistor. Thus a comparison between something and a transistor does not equate with a comparison between something and a DSP.
If you reall are that smart, you have not done a very good job of articulating yourself.
Since the comparison is between digital electronics and analog electronics, our brains are much more like analog electronics. For one, the brain uses multiple valued control logic at the "hardware level"-- evidence: rate of fire of neurons is important in determining neuronal reaction.
No, the rate of fire of neurons is not important in determining the reaction of the neuron. Neurons only store one peice of information, the voltage diffrence between the inside and outside of the cell, diffrent chemicals affect that, and neurons can run out of the transmiter chemical in their axion, but the exact response of the neuron can be known by looking at the chemicals in and near the cell, without knowing anything else about what happened in the past.
For two, our brain does not operate at a fixed clock clock rate, as would be required by digital electronics (modulo the use of clock multipliers in digital electronics).
Digital computers do not need clocks. un-clocked computing is posible, but very hard to design.
One of the earliest attempts to use incompleteness to reason about human intelligence was by Gödel himself in his 1951 Gibbs lecture entitled "Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and their philosophical implications." In this lecture, Gödel uses the incompleteness theorem to arrive at the following disjunction: (a) the human mind is not a consistent finite machine, or (b) there exist Diophantine equations for which it cannot decide whether solutions exist. Gödel finds (b) implausible, and thus seems to have believed the human mind was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power exceeded that of any finite machine.
It certanly seems resonable to me that there is an integer mathimatical equation that the human mind cannot solve. All you have to do is make one so long that it a person could not live long enough to solve it. The idea that the brain is not finite... It is made out of a finite number of neurons, hell, a finite number of atoms. The brain is simply finite. Godel made these observations (not proofs) in the 1930s. There is simply no way to claim that the brain is not a finite computer, emulateable by a computer, without resorting to magic or the supernatural or something.
AND FOR CHRISTS' SAKE, GET AUTOPRON BACK UP!!
I lost the database, including the stored procedures. Very fucking irritating, and sad really. Maybe someday I'll put something up, but I never want to host something localy again. I'm thinking about getting a full, colocated server that I can put whatever I want on. If I do I'll probably put AP back up with some OSS blogging software or something.
Brains work with bits. On or off, firing or not firing neurons just like a computer! And neurons are far less sensitive to diffrent levels of charge then a computer is to diffrent floating point numbers.
Sorry, neurons are not at all like DSPs. They are like transistors. Firing or not firing based on the electrical charge between the inside and outside of the cell. Please, try to learn something about a topic before you speak about it. Spouting off about things you know nothing about is like jerking off in someone else's slurpy. It may be enjoyable, but if everyone does it the end result is that no one can really enjoy their slurpy unless they are a Cum junky.
You're not a cum junky, are you? No? then pleaze shut up.
Wow. Why is it that people feel the need to speak when they have no idea what they are talking about? I mean really.
I think you're talking about speculative multithreading, and I'm pretty sure this was part of the original pentium architecture - but I'm no John Siracusa.
Durr.. It's in the IA64 archetecture used by Itanium chips. Never in X86 chips like the pentium.
Yeah, all I did was take a class on neurochemistry. I guess that makes me dumb enough to think that neurons are either firing or not depending on concentrations of several (or hundreds) of diffrent chemicals floating around near it's dendrites.
Kalat must be a complete tard, and a fool I was to read his work! Woe is me!
Our brains are not analog computers. What these guys did would be akin to looking at a computers GUI to figure out if it had a trace-cache. So far removed from the lowest levels that you can't tell anything about them.
Neurons are either firing or not firing, just like a transistor in a computer. What makes them fire is having a certan theshold charge between the inside and outside of the cell, the charge is caused by sodium and potasium ions that are pumped out of the cell. It's very similar to a transistor in that respect.
The diffrence is, rather then just sending electrical signals, the neuron spits out 'juice' that affects other neurons. It could be something simple like dopamine that causes other cells to instantly fire, or something slower acting that hangs around longer and simply 'tweaks' the next cell to be more sensitive or less sensitive (like morphine or cocaine:)
Godel wrote his incompleteness theorem before turning wrote about his machines, you idiot.
Actually, there is a perfectly logical reason: it's called Goedel's incompleteness theorem. It shows that there are some types of mathematical proofs that a human mathematician can demonstrate to be true, but a turing machine ( read: any current technology computer ) cannot.
Godel didn't say anything about humans and computers. His proof has absolutly nothing to do with the diffrence. I mean, really you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. At all.
Your brain is a turing machine. Subject to all the limitations.
Yeah, they are totaly diffrent. For example a computer would probably never try to base philosophical arguments on a slashdot blurb.
Seriously, computers can work with things more complex then 'ones and zeros'. They can be programed to deal with shades of grey as easily (well, maybe not 'easily' but it definetly can be done)
The fundemental part of the human brain is the neuron, and it's either firing or not. 1 or 0 just like a computer. What triggers it is a bit more complicated, but the process can be emulated by a computer, and eventualy comptuers will be fast enough to do just that.
This kind of thing happens all the time. It's really rediculous, I mean, if you pay someone $200 million dollars, and hold back another billion, obviously they are going to have the resources to sue you.
It would be quite annoying, though. Waiting years to get your personal A380 or whatever you were planning on spending all that money on.
I havn't written a java application that came as one.class, um, ever. And I'e also never written one that had *any* trouble on other platforms.
Of course in the "real world" you're going to need to do some native code, maybe some database stuff, and those arn't protable all the time. But you can't blame java for that.
The problem with software patents, is that companies like microsoft patent one tiny part of a huge system, and then the only way to make software that's compatable with is by violating the patent.
Look at microsoft's sender ID system, they produce a 'fingerprint' of the sender based on standard mail headers, but the algorithm to do that is patented. So in order to be compatable with their system, you need to license the patent.
I think this sort of use of software patents should be banned. On the other hand, something like a new and innovative video compression codec should be patentable, IMO.
1. What do you suppose patents are for?
Well, that's a very complicated answer, but lets assume that they are there for some reason, in terms of physical objects and devices.
2. What do think patents are for, if you think they work so well? What is their purpose?
Well, this is the same question as #1. I'm not going to get into that, but I guess you think that regular patents are OK.
3. What perculiar property do you feel pertains to computational methods that distinguish them from any other creative work?
Well, whats the diffrence between designing a new kind of valve or something and any other type of creative work?
4. What is it about software that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent?
What is it about physical devices that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent?
Most people don't bother to enforce copyright on physical designs, but you certanly could. Why not copyright blueprints or whatnot?
The real question is what makes hardware diffrent then software that it shouldn't be patentable?
You're thinking of the American South, the old confederacy. Utah is out in the west, and not that many people even live there.
The Mormons, moved out there after the founding of their religion, and so it's a hotbed of mormonism. But a lot of those people are wealthy, and i was under the impression that its well kept and nice, if you don't mind a Mormon infestation. Mormons are more uptight then a lot of christians, but arn't as annoying as, for example, evangelicals or southern baptists, who are concentrated in the South.
China's government has no direct control over what happens on the Island, but the KMT party which founded the Taiwan we know today is pro-unification, their ultimate goal is to merge with the PRC on their own terms. They used to claim to run the entire country, and sat on the UN, and even the UN security Counsole as "china". On the other hand, the other major party is seperatist, and wants to start a new country, called Taiwan.
Right now a lot of Taiwanese bussness men are taking advantage of the fact that they are "Chinese" in order to make money in the quickly growing chinese economy. Lots of Taiwanese companies have plants and whatnot in China.
Slashdot Mirror
The sloppy posting is due to my lack of posting on sites that require you to supply your own linebreak tags by default. I post on slashdot so rarely now, I'm not used ot it.
This is a red herring. You can make the same problem for a computer -- one where there is not enough fuel in the universe for the computer to computer the solution. This is how modern cryptography works.
Thats not a red hearing, thats exactly why brains, just like all other real computers (and unlike turing machines with their infinite tape) are finite, and have finite limits on what they can do.
Nobody is claiming that the human mind is infinite. All I'm saying is that I and others (including some really smart famous philosophers) have concluded, based on Geodels' theorem, that turing machines and minds are qualitatively different things.
Well, Godel claimed that either humans were not emulateable by turing machines or that other thing was true. I don't know the other thing, but IIRC penrose talked about magical quantum computers with time-traveling bits inside the brain, so Its kind of hard to take that sort of thing seriously.
Universal Turing machines cannot be debugged on other UTMs. This is known as the CRASHING problem, similar to the HALTING problem, but less commonly known.
I heard a body theatan is fucking Kate Holms up the ass right now.
The brain cant work with continuous values either. How many digits of pi do you know?
You don't even seem to know that the "electrical charge" is ionic
Well, I did know that. (sodium and potassium ions) Did you expect me to regurgitate every single thing I know in every single post? Off the top of my head I can list several neurotransmitters, dopamine, various endomorphines and endocanabinoids, nitric oxide, serotonin, acetylcholine, GABA, Substance P, etc. (adrenaline is more of a hormone) I learned far more, but I don't remember every single one since I'm not a biologist.
You don't seem to know that DSPs signal by changing the electrical charge between the inside and outside of the chips - or that they're made of transistors.
And you don't seem to know there is a difference between "A transistor" and "transistors" like transistors arranged into a DSP, which would behave differently then a single transistor. Thus a comparison between something and a transistor does not equate with a comparison between something and a DSP.
If you reall are that smart, you have not done a very good job of articulating yourself.
Since the comparison is between digital electronics and analog electronics, our brains are much more like analog electronics. For one, the brain uses multiple valued control logic at the "hardware level"-- evidence: rate of fire of neurons is important in determining neuronal reaction.
No, the rate of fire of neurons is not important in determining the reaction of the neuron. Neurons only store one peice of information, the voltage diffrence between the inside and outside of the cell, diffrent chemicals affect that, and neurons can run out of the transmiter chemical in their axion, but the exact response of the neuron can be known by looking at the chemicals in and near the cell, without knowing anything else about what happened in the past.
For two, our brain does not operate at a fixed clock clock rate, as would be required by digital electronics (modulo the use of clock multipliers in digital electronics). Digital computers do not need clocks. un-clocked computing is posible, but very hard to design.
One of the earliest attempts to use incompleteness to reason about human intelligence was by Gödel himself in his 1951 Gibbs lecture entitled "Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and their philosophical implications." In this lecture, Gödel uses the incompleteness theorem to arrive at the following disjunction: (a) the human mind is not a consistent finite machine, or (b) there exist Diophantine equations for which it cannot decide whether solutions exist. Gödel finds (b) implausible, and thus seems to have believed the human mind was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power exceeded that of any finite machine. It certanly seems resonable to me that there is an integer mathimatical equation that the human mind cannot solve. All you have to do is make one so long that it a person could not live long enough to solve it. The idea that the brain is not finite... It is made out of a finite number of neurons, hell, a finite number of atoms. The brain is simply finite. Godel made these observations (not proofs) in the 1930s. There is simply no way to claim that the brain is not a finite computer, emulateable by a computer, without resorting to magic or the supernatural or something. AND FOR CHRISTS' SAKE, GET AUTOPRON BACK UP!! I lost the database, including the stored procedures. Very fucking irritating, and sad really. Maybe someday I'll put something up, but I never want to host something localy again. I'm thinking about getting a full, colocated server that I can put whatever I want on. If I do I'll probably put AP back up with some OSS blogging software or something.
When you understand this You will understand the universe.
The orgional poster was talking about taking both branches at once, and then throwing out the wrong one, which Itanium chips do.
What this is saying is that Roland Piquepaille is a fucking moron who wouldn't know neurobiology if you shot his brains out and show them to him.
Brains work with bits. On or off, firing or not firing neurons just like a computer! And neurons are far less sensitive to diffrent levels of charge then a computer is to diffrent floating point numbers.
Sorry, neurons are not at all like DSPs. They are like transistors. Firing or not firing based on the electrical charge between the inside and outside of the cell. Please, try to learn something about a topic before you speak about it. Spouting off about things you know nothing about is like jerking off in someone else's slurpy. It may be enjoyable, but if everyone does it the end result is that no one can really enjoy their slurpy unless they are a Cum junky.
You're not a cum junky, are you? No? then pleaze shut up.
Wow. Why is it that people feel the need to speak when they have no idea what they are talking about? I mean really. I think you're talking about speculative multithreading, and I'm pretty sure this was part of the original pentium architecture - but I'm no John Siracusa. Durr.. It's in the IA64 archetecture used by Itanium chips. Never in X86 chips like the pentium.
Yeah, all I did was take a class on neurochemistry. I guess that makes me dumb enough to think that neurons are either firing or not depending on concentrations of several (or hundreds) of diffrent chemicals floating around near it's dendrites.
Kalat must be a complete tard, and a fool I was to read his work! Woe is me!
Our brains are not analog computers. What these guys did would be akin to looking at a computers GUI to figure out if it had a trace-cache. So far removed from the lowest levels that you can't tell anything about them.
:)
Neurons are either firing or not firing, just like a transistor in a computer. What makes them fire is having a certan theshold charge between the inside and outside of the cell, the charge is caused by sodium and potasium ions that are pumped out of the cell. It's very similar to a transistor in that respect.
The diffrence is, rather then just sending electrical signals, the neuron spits out 'juice' that affects other neurons. It could be something simple like dopamine that causes other cells to instantly fire, or something slower acting that hangs around longer and simply 'tweaks' the next cell to be more sensitive or less sensitive (like morphine or cocaine
But it's not at all like an analog computer.
Godel wrote his incompleteness theorem before turning wrote about his machines, you idiot. Actually, there is a perfectly logical reason: it's called Goedel's incompleteness theorem. It shows that there are some types of mathematical proofs that a human mathematician can demonstrate to be true, but a turing machine ( read: any current technology computer ) cannot. Godel didn't say anything about humans and computers. His proof has absolutly nothing to do with the diffrence. I mean, really you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. At all. Your brain is a turing machine. Subject to all the limitations.
Yeah, they are totaly diffrent. For example a computer would probably never try to base philosophical arguments on a slashdot blurb.
Seriously, computers can work with things more complex then 'ones and zeros'. They can be programed to deal with shades of grey as easily (well, maybe not 'easily' but it definetly can be done)
The fundemental part of the human brain is the neuron, and it's either firing or not. 1 or 0 just like a computer. What triggers it is a bit more complicated, but the process can be emulated by a computer, and eventualy comptuers will be fast enough to do just that.
Once prices go up, the government will just seize it under eminent domain!
This kind of thing happens all the time. It's really rediculous, I mean, if you pay someone $200 million dollars, and hold back another billion, obviously they are going to have the resources to sue you. It would be quite annoying, though. Waiting years to get your personal A380 or whatever you were planning on spending all that money on.
What do you mean? Lawyers sue the US government all the time.
I havn't written a java application that came as one .class, um, ever. And I'e also never written one that had *any* trouble on other platforms.
Of course in the "real world" you're going to need to do some native code, maybe some database stuff, and those arn't protable all the time. But you can't blame java for that.
Is riding on one of these trians much cheaper then flying? Seems like it would be just about as dangerous...
The problem with software patents, is that companies like microsoft patent one tiny part of a huge system, and then the only way to make software that's compatable with is by violating the patent. Look at microsoft's sender ID system, they produce a 'fingerprint' of the sender based on standard mail headers, but the algorithm to do that is patented. So in order to be compatable with their system, you need to license the patent. I think this sort of use of software patents should be banned. On the other hand, something like a new and innovative video compression codec should be patentable, IMO. 1. What do you suppose patents are for? Well, that's a very complicated answer, but lets assume that they are there for some reason, in terms of physical objects and devices. 2. What do think patents are for, if you think they work so well? What is their purpose? Well, this is the same question as #1. I'm not going to get into that, but I guess you think that regular patents are OK. 3. What perculiar property do you feel pertains to computational methods that distinguish them from any other creative work? Well, whats the diffrence between designing a new kind of valve or something and any other type of creative work? 4. What is it about software that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent? What is it about physical devices that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent? Most people don't bother to enforce copyright on physical designs, but you certanly could. Why not copyright blueprints or whatnot? The real question is what makes hardware diffrent then software that it shouldn't be patentable?
You're thinking of the American South, the old confederacy. Utah is out in the west, and not that many people even live there. The Mormons, moved out there after the founding of their religion, and so it's a hotbed of mormonism. But a lot of those people are wealthy, and i was under the impression that its well kept and nice, if you don't mind a Mormon infestation. Mormons are more uptight then a lot of christians, but arn't as annoying as, for example, evangelicals or southern baptists, who are concentrated in the South.
China's government has no direct control over what happens on the Island, but the KMT party which founded the Taiwan we know today is pro-unification, their ultimate goal is to merge with the PRC on their own terms. They used to claim to run the entire country, and sat on the UN, and even the UN security Counsole as "china". On the other hand, the other major party is seperatist, and wants to start a new country, called Taiwan.
Right now a lot of Taiwanese bussness men are taking advantage of the fact that they are "Chinese" in order to make money in the quickly growing chinese economy. Lots of Taiwanese companies have plants and whatnot in China.