Critical thinking and science is about ideas, not people. I do not care for the name of an inventor or of a discoverer, I care about what they actually did. Hubble is the name of an effect, not of an astronomer.
I would prefer a tech-tree, a la Civilization, with more details and updated to the latest discovery than a list of people the author of the map felt were important.
Ok, the main argument was about China doing many more "right things" on specific domains than the US. But what about an Asian democracydoingexactlythesame.
If you want to count like that, their plan is to build in 15 years as much nuclear power plant as there are in US for now. As a start. Switching the source of power of the most populated country int he world doesn't happen overnight. I use 'unequivocally' as a comparison to US where everybody says it would be a good idea but the only plans are to use 8 mere billions and to build two new plants.
They want tools to help. Namely, I would like to know more about the violence level of a program and to care less about sex. My kids will be punished more by going into the first than in the second.
I believe also that planets are very common throughout the galaxy but the dry and strict scientist in me keeps reminding that these planets are only detected on the closest stars (I think in the 500 ly radius ?). So maybe a local condition for creating planets exceptionally happened in the neighborhood. I don't believe it, but that is still a possibility.
You don't understand. The danger with this kind of teaching is that people might realize that anti-terrorist measures are just a big ridiculous joke. That a bunch of educated persons with a $10,000 budget would have an easy way designing a terrorist attack.
I mean, we are supposed to be paranoid about airports right ? Hackers from the CCC have shown that they can do a RFID clone of the access badge of security staff. Yeah, sure, T-rays and biometrics passports make us safe...
It seems reasonable to say that a computer program that needs to stay precise to the second on a several years interval must have a NTP or GPS.
It seems reasonable in such case to add a test in your test suite to acknowledge for the "one leap second event on 31th of december"
That is not in the stuff that I read. Yes, emotions were discarded. However, AFAIK their importance is on the rise again, as we realize, for example, that you can't even make decision (not good decisions, any decision at all) without emotions being involved.
Emotions can very usefully replaced by a goal to fulfil. Call it a drive if you prefer.
My argument is that you can not seperate "cognition" out from an intelligence and still end up with something that we would consider intelligent in the same sense we do consider humans.
This is quickly becoming a semantic debate. You can call non-human-intelligence anything that would fail the Turing test but some clever devices that are not aim at masquerading as humans can have their use. I'm sure HAL9000 would fail a turing test yet it is incontestably useful and intelligent.
This qualia notion is really fascinating in how it can lure thinkers into a weird realm of concepts...
Would you say that a computer can't do calculation because it doesn't have the qualia for the number "5" encoded ?
If you say no, then, ask yourself what is different between encoding 5 as 101 and encoding "red" as 0xff0000.
If you say yes, then you are saying that computers can not compute. I would suggest that you take a deep breath and consider the question of whether or not the premises leading to such a strange conclusion might not be erroneous.
Roger Penrose popularized this idea but didn't write it a science theory : he would have a hard time to find data to support his theory. He preferred to write a philosophy book. And don't get me started on the meaning of such a choice...
Still should be possible in principle - but the level of difficulty is immensely higher than "singularity" theorists would have you believe.
The argument about the possibility of making machine sentient is that what is proposed is possible on principle. It has a complexity with finite higher bound. Many people believe that the processes to create/simulate sentience are much simpler than simulating a whole human brain, but this is another argument. There is no question that it is possible.
Do you realize that you are making a point that was already obsolete in the 80s ? Emulating emotions has been considered as important, has been discarded as less important as having a "theory of mind" of your interlocutor (which should simulate emotions). The knowledge we have about the workings of emotions is very wide and clearer every day, and is rightfully thought as being unnecessary (outside a theory of mind) if we want to build a machine with human-like cognition abilities.
I am unsure about that "mind-body link" you are talking about. Care to elaborate ? (with maybe a link to the kind of discoveries you talk about ?) We understand fairly well how many below-neck sensors and chemicals influence neuron cells. They have their importance in psychology, but they seem really useless when it comes to cognition.
Actually, no. It is close to impossible. A neuron is nothing near the kind of machinery you need to make a quantum effect have macroscopic result. Cascade reactions from a single particle event do not happen in neuron cells, do not get amplified. For a neural impulse to be transmitted, you need thousands (very low estimate) of molecules to travel through a gap and this huge number is enough to iron out any quantum oddity.
I know many philosophers and social science types love this hypotheses, and love the fact that you can't completely prove it wrong until we implemented a sentient machine (just as you can't be definitely sure that humans can travel to Jupiter without becoming crazy) but they propose absolutely no theories about how this translate into what we know about neurons. There are no such theories in the neurobiology field and no phenomenon seems to require a "quantum magic" hypothesis to be explained.
Make no mistake about it : people who talk about unspeakable quantum phenomenon to explain thoughts are just people who are uncomfortable about the idea that we don't need any soul-thingie to explain sentience and consciousness.
There is no artificial sentience on earth, why is it supposed that machines can be made sentient?
Because nothing says it is impossible. Who argues it is impossible to send men to Jupiter's orbit with regular rockets ? We haven't done it yet but nothing in this project seems impossible, it is just a matter of cost and engineering. Similarly, nothing uncomputable seems to occur in our brains. In the worst case, a computer simulating neurons (yes, a simplified model, there are many reasons to argue that this is sufficient) connected in a network that would be copied from a real human brain would display intelligence. We don't have powerful enough computers or precise enough IRMs yet for that, but there are no theoretical impossibilities. That is why we suppose that machines can be made sentient. I personally think that it will happen before we manage to copy a human neural network, but it gives a higher bound to the difficulty of the problem.
And that's why in many of those "socialist" countries like France, firing or resigning has to be preceded by a notice at least 3 months before. It can be shorter if both parties agree but if they do not, the three months salary is due (to the employer if the employee quits earlier or to the employee if the employer wants to fire quickly). Exceptions exist though (professional fault, mainly) but it tends to make things a lot clearer and to give less incentive to hide the situation.
Normally, the Swedish Prosecution Authority do not publish the names of persons suspected of crime. The authority did not in this case initiate publication. Late on Friday night, a Swedish newspaper got hold of information concerning Mr Assange's arrest. When interviewed, the duty prosecutor confirmed the facts presented.
Question : would you also hang the various salesmen who argue with "Microsoft(tm) Facts(tm)" that Windows is the most secure OS out there and that it is adequate for mission critical tasks ?
It takes one or two programmers to corrupt in order to steal a nationwide election. Paper voting can be tampered but at a greater cost and a smaller effect.
With electronic voting you have to trust a black box. Would you accept to vote with paper ballots in a box that is opaque, that is not shown to be empty beforehand and that destroys its ballot after counting ? No ? Then you don't trust electronic voting.
Slashdot Mirror
Critical thinking and science is about ideas, not people. I do not care for the name of an inventor or of a discoverer, I care about what they actually did. Hubble is the name of an effect, not of an astronomer.
I would prefer a tech-tree, a la Civilization, with more details and updated to the latest discovery than a list of people the author of the map felt were important.
One theory is that they lack role models.
GO MARIE CURIE !
Also this kind of mindset may not help : http://xkcd.com/385/
Ok, the main argument was about China doing many more "right things" on specific domains than the US. But what about an Asian democracy doing exactly the same.
Come on USA, when will you wake up ?
If you want to count like that, their plan is to build in 15 years as much nuclear power plant as there are in US for now. As a start. Switching the source of power of the most populated country int he world doesn't happen overnight. I use 'unequivocally' as a comparison to US where everybody says it would be a good idea but the only plans are to use 8 mere billions and to build two new plants.
I guess we have to start do things like China does then :
- Stop having more than one kid : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
- Use high-speed rail for long distance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
- Switch unequivocally to nuclear power : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
- Build cheap electrical cars : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Auto
Funny. "Western elites" seem to know what is needed to be done but it looks like in Asia, they prefer to do than to talk.
Silly patents are not recognized by innovative countries. Prepare to be assimilated.
mod parent up ! :-)
Oh, okay, nevermind then, turns out I was right to believe it was the case
They want tools to help. Namely, I would like to know more about the violence level of a program and to care less about sex. My kids will be punished more by going into the first than in the second.
I believe also that planets are very common throughout the galaxy but the dry and strict scientist in me keeps reminding that these planets are only detected on the closest stars (I think in the 500 ly radius ?). So maybe a local condition for creating planets exceptionally happened in the neighborhood. I don't believe it, but that is still a possibility.
You don't understand. The danger with this kind of teaching is that people might realize that anti-terrorist measures are just a big ridiculous joke. That a bunch of educated persons with a $10,000 budget would have an easy way designing a terrorist attack.
I mean, we are supposed to be paranoid about airports right ? Hackers from the CCC have shown that they can do a RFID clone of the access badge of security staff. Yeah, sure, T-rays and biometrics passports make us safe...
Which is obviously more distrurbing than any level of gore.
It seems reasonable to say that a computer program that needs to stay precise to the second on a several years interval must have a NTP or GPS.
It seems reasonable in such case to add a test in your test suite to acknowledge for the "one leap second event on 31th of december"
That is not in the stuff that I read. Yes, emotions were discarded. However, AFAIK their importance is on the rise again, as we realize, for example, that you can't even make decision (not good decisions, any decision at all) without emotions being involved.
Emotions can very usefully replaced by a goal to fulfil. Call it a drive if you prefer.
My argument is that you can not seperate "cognition" out from an intelligence and still end up with something that we would consider intelligent in the same sense we do consider humans.
This is quickly becoming a semantic debate. You can call non-human-intelligence anything that would fail the Turing test but some clever devices that are not aim at masquerading as humans can have their use. I'm sure HAL9000 would fail a turing test yet it is incontestably useful and intelligent.
This qualia notion is really fascinating in how it can lure thinkers into a weird realm of concepts...
Would you say that a computer can't do calculation because it doesn't have the qualia for the number "5" encoded ?
If you say no, then, ask yourself what is different between encoding 5 as 101 and encoding "red" as 0xff0000.
If you say yes, then you are saying that computers can not compute. I would suggest that you take a deep breath and consider the question of whether or not the premises leading to such a strange conclusion might not be erroneous.
If you are willing to think that way, we are saved then : quantum effects *are* involved in transistor logic.
Roger Penrose popularized this idea but didn't write it a science theory : he would have a hard time to find data to support his theory. He preferred to write a philosophy book. And don't get me started on the meaning of such a choice...
Still should be possible in principle - but the level of difficulty is immensely higher than "singularity" theorists would have you believe.
The argument about the possibility of making machine sentient is that what is proposed is possible on principle. It has a complexity with finite higher bound. Many people believe that the processes to create/simulate sentience are much simpler than simulating a whole human brain, but this is another argument. There is no question that it is possible.
And yes, sorry, IRM is the French acronym for MRI
Do you realize that you are making a point that was already obsolete in the 80s ? Emulating emotions has been considered as important, has been discarded as less important as having a "theory of mind" of your interlocutor (which should simulate emotions). The knowledge we have about the workings of emotions is very wide and clearer every day, and is rightfully thought as being unnecessary (outside a theory of mind) if we want to build a machine with human-like cognition abilities.
I am unsure about that "mind-body link" you are talking about. Care to elaborate ? (with maybe a link to the kind of discoveries you talk about ?) We understand fairly well how many below-neck sensors and chemicals influence neuron cells. They have their importance in psychology, but they seem really useless when it comes to cognition.
Actually, no. It is close to impossible. A neuron is nothing near the kind of machinery you need to make a quantum effect have macroscopic result. Cascade reactions from a single particle event do not happen in neuron cells, do not get amplified. For a neural impulse to be transmitted, you need thousands (very low estimate) of molecules to travel through a gap and this huge number is enough to iron out any quantum oddity.
I know many philosophers and social science types love this hypotheses, and love the fact that you can't completely prove it wrong until we implemented a sentient machine (just as you can't be definitely sure that humans can travel to Jupiter without becoming crazy) but they propose absolutely no theories about how this translate into what we know about neurons. There are no such theories in the neurobiology field and no phenomenon seems to require a "quantum magic" hypothesis to be explained.
Make no mistake about it : people who talk about unspeakable quantum phenomenon to explain thoughts are just people who are uncomfortable about the idea that we don't need any soul-thingie to explain sentience and consciousness.
There is no artificial sentience on earth, why is it supposed that machines can be made sentient?
Because nothing says it is impossible. Who argues it is impossible to send men to Jupiter's orbit with regular rockets ? We haven't done it yet but nothing in this project seems impossible, it is just a matter of cost and engineering. Similarly, nothing uncomputable seems to occur in our brains. In the worst case, a computer simulating neurons (yes, a simplified model, there are many reasons to argue that this is sufficient) connected in a network that would be copied from a real human brain would display intelligence. We don't have powerful enough computers or precise enough IRMs yet for that, but there are no theoretical impossibilities. That is why we suppose that machines can be made sentient. I personally think that it will happen before we manage to copy a human neural network, but it gives a higher bound to the difficulty of the problem.
And a couple of magnitude harder than what any non-profit ever did.
And that's why in many of those "socialist" countries like France, firing or resigning has to be preceded by a notice at least 3 months before. It can be shorter if both parties agree but if they do not, the three months salary is due (to the employer if the employee quits earlier or to the employee if the employer wants to fire quickly). Exceptions exist though (professional fault, mainly) but it tends to make things a lot clearer and to give less incentive to hide the situation.
Why was Mr Assanges name published?
Normally, the Swedish Prosecution Authority do not publish the names of persons suspected of crime. The authority did not in this case initiate publication. Late on Friday night, a Swedish newspaper got hold of information concerning Mr Assange's arrest. When interviewed, the duty prosecutor confirmed the facts presented.
Source : http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/
Question : would you also hang the various salesmen who argue with "Microsoft(tm) Facts(tm)" that Windows is the most secure OS out there and that it is adequate for mission critical tasks ?
It takes one or two programmers to corrupt in order to steal a nationwide election. Paper voting can be tampered but at a greater cost and a smaller effect.
With electronic voting you have to trust a black box. Would you accept to vote with paper ballots in a box that is opaque, that is not shown to be empty beforehand and that destroys its ballot after counting ? No ? Then you don't trust electronic voting.