Chimps have all of the above things, with the exception of hairless bodies (although we don't have that) and written language.
The biggest difference between us (humans and chimps) is brain complexity, which requires very little genetic difference at all.
The nine month gestation period (and our resultant inability to survive independantly) is caused by the fact that our increased brain volume means that further development in the womb would result in us being unable to be pass through the vagina and into the world. The 14 year period of sexual maturity (which I think is a conservative estimate - I'd say sexual maturity is more like 10-12 these days) has been reduced significantly by improved diet over the last 100 years (100 years ago, girls wouldn't be menstruating until 18+). It also linked to the higher brain mass. A month of development outside the womb is not worth a month inside the womb. Belated sexual development is a trade-off against other facilities.
No, no, no, no, no.
It is not the fact that they do not use their eyes that is the driving force here - they have no choice but to use them, if they have them. The driving force is the cost of maintaining their eyes. Fish with fully developed eyes need more food to build and maintain their eyes - so when their is little food, those with underdeveloped eyes do better.
Some might ask why they haven't just lost thir eyes completely. Because that is a change as radical as developing them in the first place - there is no backpedaling in evolution. Jurassic Park and The Lost World (the books) actually do quite a good job of illustrating this.
For your first point, about eyesight, a computer model has been produced which shows that an eye-like structure can be evolved from a single light sensitive cell/region in relatively little time. (400,000 years).
The model starts with a flat region of cells. Over time, random changes following a few known possible mutations take place (eg a cell can become more light senstive, or the region can become more curved, etc.). The computer runs a few tests on the resulting structures, and selects those that do the job of "seeing" best. After 400,000 simulated "years", the simulation produces a spherical cavity with an iris-like opening and, most astounding, a lens. A lens with a variable refractive index (like our own).
I first discovered this example in a book entitled Nature's Numbers, by Ian Stewart. The point made is that while half an eye isn't useful in evolutionary terms, a half-developed eye can be.
A characteristic need not be necessary for it to be available for exploitation by evolution. Some species of organism might be wandering around with a vestigial crest for a while,m and because it isn't actually a disadvantage, it doesn't get bred out. But once having a crest is an advantage, you can bet your bottom dollar that examples of the organism with the crest will become more prolific, and teh crest will get larger too, to the point where it gives the most advantage with the (relatively) least cost. The point is that natural selection removes disadvantages, it doesn't add advantages. Mutation/variation adds advantages and disadvantages.
That argument assumes that chimps haven't evolved over the time since divergence.
Evolution cites a common ancestor, and not that when a population diverges, that one evolves and the other does not.
For example, there are observations, which I would say are "facts". For example: "This table is brown".
Actually, no. Brown is entirely subjective. How do I know that what I see as ^brown (the colour in my head) is actually what you label brown. Note ^brown is a colour and brown is a label.
Colour is the way we interpret different wavelengths of light caused (the differences, not the light) by excited electrons in the material observed. A such, you cannot prove "brown" to be a fact. The table is irrefutably a region of space which causes light which reflects off it to assume the wavelength which humans label brown, but it is not brown as such.
If you call that nitpicking, then a creationist can call the fossil record nitpicking, or an evolutionist can call the missing link nitpicking.
And this is the problem. There is no point at which you can stop being scientific without endangering everything built on that foundation.
Human's didn't devolve, at least not in a genetic sense, they merely became less educated, and as a result lost the ability to express their intelligence.
I've known two people who were born woth 12 digits, and they managed to hold onto them for all of 3 days after they were born.
I'm not commenting on the ethics of the situation,just pointing out that it does happen.
But because treatments are available that allow them to grow up and procreate, their defect is no longer a "defect" in evolutionary terms, because it no longer hampers their ability to reproduce.
Environmental factors induced by other members of the population are environmental factors nonetheless.
The price of a few plane seats?
Maybe inside the continental US the price of getting to Googles HQ by plane is low, but what about those lucky enough not to live in America?
I think the point of automating the flip was that it is a very difficult maneouvre, and their logic goes that if its hard and you can automate, then if its easy you can automate. Not always so, but....
Has anyone else noticed that the.avis of the manual roll and the automated roll are the same file?
Owen.
Re:We (probably) won't ever actually ACHIEVE AI
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
By your requirements, AI already exists.
Another requirement, which is more important, is the ability to make links between similar processes, not just between different instances o
f the same process, and also the ability to predict outcomes from previous knowledge. Saying "I knew that was going to happen" isn't very helpful, but taking action before it happens to make use of or prevent a result is/can be.
One thing that worries me though, is the use of the term "artificial". How is a computer-based intelligence any less real than our own? The substrate for the intelligence is man-made, but surely the whole point of intelligence is that is more than just the medium through which it is expressed?
Its also hard to determine whether intelligence is discrete or continuous. Are you either intelligent or not, or is there a sliding scale?
Bear in mind that low IQ and technology are a measure of development, and not "intelligence" in this sense. Is someone who can produce a result twice as fast as someone else, twice as intelligent? No. They're just twice as fast at performing the task, or they have a faster heuristic method.
I myself would be incline to a discrete, binary property of intelligence in this sense, but I may be wrong.
The article doesn't make itself very clear, but it doesn't say that the neutrons collide with each other head-on.
Reading the article, after reading the above comments, I still got the impression that the author of the article meant for us to envision a torrent of neutrons colliding with the charged nuclei of the previous paragraph.
The author of the article probably is fairly illiterate when it comes to fusion reactions, but you can't expect a "science" journalist to be an expert in every field of science.
I agree that he (the reporter) did a very poor job of making the facts apparent, but careful reading reveals that he wasn't so much wrong, as unclear.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest difference between us (humans and chimps) is brain complexity, which requires very little genetic difference at all.
The nine month gestation period (and our resultant inability to survive independantly) is caused by the fact that our increased brain volume means that further development in the womb would result in us being unable to be pass through the vagina and into the world.
The 14 year period of sexual maturity (which I think is a conservative estimate - I'd say sexual maturity is more like 10-12 these days) has been reduced significantly by improved diet over the last 100 years (100 years ago, girls wouldn't be menstruating until 18+). It also linked to the higher brain mass. A month of development outside the womb is not worth a month inside the womb. Belated sexual development is a trade-off against other facilities.
No, no, no, no, no.
It is not the fact that they do not use their eyes that is the driving force here - they have no choice but to use them, if they have them. The driving force is the cost of maintaining their eyes. Fish with fully developed eyes need more food to build and maintain their eyes - so when their is little food, those with underdeveloped eyes do better.
Some might ask why they haven't just lost thir eyes completely. Because that is a change as radical as developing them in the first place - there is no backpedaling in evolution. Jurassic Park and The Lost World (the books) actually do quite a good job of illustrating this.
For your first point, about eyesight, a computer model has been produced which shows that an eye-like structure can be evolved from a single light sensitive cell/region in relatively little time. (400,000 years).
The model starts with a flat region of cells. Over time, random changes following a few known possible mutations take place (eg a cell can become more light senstive, or the region can become more curved, etc.). The computer runs a few tests on the resulting structures, and selects those that do the job of "seeing" best. After 400,000 simulated "years", the simulation produces a spherical cavity with an iris-like opening and, most astounding, a lens. A lens with a variable refractive index (like our own).
I first discovered this example in a book entitled Nature's Numbers, by Ian Stewart. The point made is that while half an eye isn't useful in evolutionary terms, a half-developed eye can be.
A bit like chasing a rainbow - and the rainbow still exists.
A characteristic need not be necessary for it to be available for exploitation by evolution. Some species of organism might be wandering around with a vestigial crest for a while,m and because it isn't actually a disadvantage, it doesn't get bred out. But once having a crest is an advantage, you can bet your bottom dollar that examples of the organism with the crest will become more prolific, and teh crest will get larger too, to the point where it gives the most advantage with the (relatively) least cost. The point is that natural selection removes disadvantages, it doesn't add advantages. Mutation/variation adds advantages and disadvantages.
That argument assumes that chimps haven't evolved over the time since divergence.
Evolution cites a common ancestor, and not that when a population diverges, that one evolves and the other does not.
Cheque can be made payable to the institution for evolutionary research of your choice. Hehe.
Actually, no. Brown is entirely subjective. How do I know that what I see as ^brown (the colour in my head) is actually what you label brown. Note ^brown is a colour and brown is a label.
Colour is the way we interpret different wavelengths of light caused (the differences, not the light) by excited electrons in the material observed. A such, you cannot prove "brown" to be a fact. The table is irrefutably a region of space which causes light which reflects off it to assume the wavelength which humans label brown, but it is not brown as such.
If you call that nitpicking, then a creationist can call the fossil record nitpicking, or an evolutionist can call the missing link nitpicking. And this is the problem. There is no point at which you can stop being scientific without endangering everything built on that foundation.
Because, when you think about it, evolution is a lot more simple than the idea of a divine entity.
Human's didn't devolve, at least not in a genetic sense, they merely became less educated, and as a result lost the ability to express their intelligence.
I've known two people who were born woth 12 digits, and they managed to hold onto them for all of 3 days after they were born. I'm not commenting on the ethics of the situation,just pointing out that it does happen.
But because treatments are available that allow them to grow up and procreate, their defect is no longer a "defect" in evolutionary terms, because it no longer hampers their ability to reproduce. Environmental factors induced by other members of the population are environmental factors nonetheless.
The price of a few plane seats? Maybe inside the continental US the price of getting to Googles HQ by plane is low, but what about those lucky enough not to live in America?
Webster's Dictionary defines programming as....
I think the point of automating the flip was that it is a very difficult maneouvre, and their logic goes that if its hard and you can automate, then if its easy you can automate. Not always so, but.... Has anyone else noticed that the .avis of the manual roll and the automated roll are the same file?
Owen.
By your requirements, AI already exists. Another requirement, which is more important, is the ability to make links between similar processes, not just between different instances o f the same process, and also the ability to predict outcomes from previous knowledge. Saying "I knew that was going to happen" isn't very helpful, but taking action before it happens to make use of or prevent a result is/can be. One thing that worries me though, is the use of the term "artificial". How is a computer-based intelligence any less real than our own? The substrate for the intelligence is man-made, but surely the whole point of intelligence is that is more than just the medium through which it is expressed? Its also hard to determine whether intelligence is discrete or continuous. Are you either intelligent or not, or is there a sliding scale? Bear in mind that low IQ and technology are a measure of development, and not "intelligence" in this sense. Is someone who can produce a result twice as fast as someone else, twice as intelligent? No. They're just twice as fast at performing the task, or they have a faster heuristic method. I myself would be incline to a discrete, binary property of intelligence in this sense, but I may be wrong.
Arguing against me by paraphrasing my own argument is never going to work.
The article doesn't make itself very clear, but it doesn't say that the neutrons collide with each other head-on. Reading the article, after reading the above comments, I still got the impression that the author of the article meant for us to envision a torrent of neutrons colliding with the charged nuclei of the previous paragraph. The author of the article probably is fairly illiterate when it comes to fusion reactions, but you can't expect a "science" journalist to be an expert in every field of science. I agree that he (the reporter) did a very poor job of making the facts apparent, but careful reading reveals that he wasn't so much wrong, as unclear.