but still didnt engage in the actual discussion...regarding your links...***i already knew that***...or the basics of that...your second link...yes...it's "just a theory" that is unproven...based on several assumptions...but fine
**GIVEN ALL THAT**
you still haven't counted my point, which was that however we age the universe, it is based on certain criteria...therefore, my point still stands...this whole thread is pointless bullshit posturing
it's pointless to argue about the age of the universe...better to talk about the current theories than just fire off bon mots that contribute nothing to the conversation
your analogy, which i read elsewhere on this thread, is incorrect
**we don't know** the nature of 'space' and the 'universe' like you're making out
'space' is not like a rubberband and 'light' is not analogous to an ant crawling on said rubber band...it's just a bad analogy that doesn't prove anything either way
you talk as if the problem in TFA is a funding issue...
there needs to be more public funding of research for sure, and bigger budgets for state universities...yes all true
however, you're giving these professors in TFA a free pass and blameshifting
TFA is about **THE TOP PUBLISHERS** not just the highest PhD in each department...
to call this a funding issue is to miss the root cause: the professors themselves
it's out of control in academia...really it is become awful...narcissistic tenured prof's staying on 20 years past when they should have retired to make room for new younger talent
Because the expansion of space is independent of the light traveling through it
nonsense statement...had to read twice to be sure, but this is just technobabble and not based on scientific definitions of "space" and "light"
and the light that has just arrived came to us in some cased from objects that are now much further away than 14B lightyears
if I understand you correctly, you're wrong...the whole point of GP, one which I think you're attempting to address, is that the only reason we know the universe's shape is because of "light"...wether the CMB or a GRB...
the CMB & the light from the most distant/oldest objects indicates the 14Billion number...if what you say is true, we'd have to revise the figure
in other words, **NO** there is not 'light' hitting us from 14B ly+ because if that were true we'd have evidence of an older universe, so we'd revise our figure of the age of the universe accordingly
i was going to post something similar (i usually use blockquote) but you pretty much hit it
i lol'ed when i saw "quantify outcomes"...
seriously..."quantify outcomes"...might as well say "keep toilet paper stocked"...the whole fskign world runs on quantified outcomes...i'm dismayed not because a M$ CEO is throwing out doublespeak BS...no, that is expected of course...it's what he chose to say that indicates his vision for M$ will be more of the same only more efficient internally
if MarsOne was in any way legit, nations and orgs would be lining up to get these payloads...Russia, China, ESA, NASA, MIT, UCLA, India, not to mention private companies including mining companies
i'd put a rover up to test preselected areas...
-OR-
have a rover -AND- a craft that detaches in orbit or before that goes an explores a pre-select asteroid
i saw someone suggest "Lego Mindstorms" above...that's where this is at...really...it'll be like a Raspberry Pi thing they select
"go after" means the Federal Government to **enforce** laws or pass new ones
Republicans block every effort to pass new Net Neutrality laws or enforce currenet ones
> enforcement: GOP excuse: "can't...no money to do it...we got us a budget crisis b/c of government spending" > pass new laws: GOP excuse: "can't...new laws are 'regulation' and that's bad for business and jobs"
So the answer to "why not go after..." is simply BECAUSE REPUBLICANS
if you disagree...you must contradict my dual thesis...policy and laws exist and we enforce them...Republicans and Democrats control that...on both issues my thesis is that Democrats want to "go after verizon, comcast" and that Republicans oppose such actions by vote and by administrative decisions....you must show Republicans who advocate for both Net Neutrality AND increased enforcement/regulation on big teleco's specifically if you want to have a discussion
"Free will" is undefined, unexplained magic, and thus of no scientific meaning.
***scientific***
right...that means the reverse is true....***science cannont disprove the existence of "free will" either***
which agrees with me...my ORIGINAL POST said the exact same thing...it's even in the title...
questions of "what is intelligence?" and "what is free will?" are **not answerable by science**
"free will" and "intelligence" are socially constructed words to describe observations of human behavior....they "exist" as concepts only in the context of human interaction
you can say "free will is an illusion" but that doesn't take away my ability to sue you in court if you violate my "free will" by drugging me and raping me
so I'm right...science cannot disprove the existence of "free will"
you criticize me for saying something, then tell me that the OP was right **for saying the same thing**
OP's point, which you're deliberately missing, is that whatever intelligence is, it is not an observer-relative thing which demands that the observer be unaware of the mechanism
that was MY point...
intelligence IS NOT OBSERVER RELATIVE...that's why the Turing Test and Lovelace Test are completely unusable and foolish as a test of acheiving "artificial intelligence"
because they can **move the goalposts**
you're agreeing with me, getting upmodded...but talking as if you have presented a counterpoint
In particular, if one could hypothetically replace someone's brain with a computer and not know the difference then the computer must necessarily be intelligent, insofar as humans are intelligent
simply untrue...
why? your scenario is incomplete
what is the **context** of this test of the computer-brain hybrid person?
how long do i get to talk to them? can i spend all 24 hours of each day with them? I have many more questions about the complexity of the 'test' for this frankenstein
the whole notion that "if people think it is X then it is X" is a tautology...tell that to your philosophy friend
ruling that something can be stolen does not prove it is "money"
anything of value that can be owned can be stolen (in monetary terms)
"money" is a dumb word to use as a milestone
BTC's problem is that it is not accepted as payment for things like taxes, mortgage payments, car payments...it's not accepted currency....it's a hobby currency
when you can pay your mortgage or taxes with BTC then it is "money"
So if someone figures out how the brain works, and is about to describe its function, then people will no longer be intelligent? Intelligence is a characteristic of behavior. If it behaves intelligently, then it is intelligent. The underlying mechanism should be irrelevant.
No.
you describe "behaviorism" which is a thoroughly discredited and reductive theory
the ***whole conversation*** is about ***the underlying mechanism***
the "Lovelace Test" is more rigorous, but how it will affect computing I cannot say, because the Turing Test itself is a time-wasting notion.
the problem: questions of "what is intelligence" are Philosophy 101 questions...not scientific or computing questions...and we hurt our industry when we overlap the two
just because we can prod a human to make them do something, or dose them with a chemical or whathaveyou, doesn't mean we have disproven the existence of "free will"
we will map every neural connection in the human brain soon, this doesn't mean all humans will become remote controlled techno-zombies
people take other's freedom by many means: by gunpoint emotional manipulation through blackmail too much alchohol the Frey Effect threats of loss of work
so learning how neurons work is just another potential addition to that list
the point: humans have free will and it can be subverted in many ways, this does not have any implications in computing
*some* are...like HTML5 & CSS3, but those standards had to be developed *in opposition* to what the W3C wanted...which was, as GP pointed out...more of the same
"The web is just an enormous stack of kluges upon hacks upon misbegotten designs. This Archaeology of Errors...
GP's only problem is that they assume that the "enormous stack of kluges" was not done with intention.
Take the HTML standard and the fight between the W3C & the WHATWG....the W3C wanted to the new standard to include bits that make it easier to track what users do and use DRM, and they stalled any attempt to change the standard
Only b/c of the WHATWG do we have HTML5/CSS3, and a functioning internet to even discuss this issue.
My point? GP is right...why?
**many coding problems are by design to make artificial scarcity**
Slashdot Mirror
yes...you all were right and I was wrong...
see, this is my fault for being so angry about the 'multiverse' theory...it's a ridiculous tautology...
but yeah...it get what you guys were trying to say about expansion of space vs light age...
yeah...sorry
what is your point?
you're saying that those galaxies/quasars were formed before the CMB?
you know enough to be dangerous...that's all...have fun with your redshift calculator...there's no productive discussion to be had here
but still didnt engage in the actual discussion...regarding your links...***i already knew that***...or the basics of that...your second link...yes...it's "just a theory" that is unproven...based on several assumptions...but fine
**GIVEN ALL THAT**
you still haven't counted my point, which was that however we age the universe, it is based on certain criteria...therefore, my point still stands...this whole thread is pointless bullshit posturing
it's pointless to argue about the age of the universe...better to talk about the current theories than just fire off bon mots that contribute nothing to the conversation
it's not that you don't *want* to explain, or that you think i wont' understand...no...
you can't explain it
you actually don't understand it yourself and are BS'ing
i did make a coherent point, referencing the two main things we have that give us the age of the universe now
> Cosmic Microwave Background
> Gamma Ray Bursts
There are others, but any new distant event is usually first compared to the two things listed above
you could have explained it more simply
your response is crap...you're being a condescention troll...telling me i need to read up on 'X, Y, or Z thing'
if my response was so dumb, you'd be able to correct things with a paragraph, maybe a bit more
if it's too complex to correct, then it's not something everyone with a college degree (or w/e condescending thing you made it out to be) would know
so explain in detail or STFU
your analogy, which i read elsewhere on this thread, is incorrect
**we don't know** the nature of 'space' and the 'universe' like you're making out
'space' is not like a rubberband and 'light' is not analogous to an ant crawling on said rubber band...it's just a bad analogy that doesn't prove anything either way
just confuses things
you talk as if the problem in TFA is a funding issue...
there needs to be more public funding of research for sure, and bigger budgets for state universities...yes all true
however, you're giving these professors in TFA a free pass and blameshifting
TFA is about **THE TOP PUBLISHERS** not just the highest PhD in each department...
to call this a funding issue is to miss the root cause: the professors themselves
it's out of control in academia...really it is become awful...narcissistic tenured prof's staying on 20 years past when they should have retired to make room for new younger talent
nonsense statement...had to read twice to be sure, but this is just technobabble and not based on scientific definitions of "space" and "light"
if I understand you correctly, you're wrong...the whole point of GP, one which I think you're attempting to address, is that the only reason we know the universe's shape is because of "light"...wether the CMB or a GRB...
the CMB & the light from the most distant/oldest objects indicates the 14Billion number...if what you say is true, we'd have to revise the figure
in other words, **NO** there is not 'light' hitting us from 14B ly+ because if that were true we'd have evidence of an older universe, so we'd revise our figure of the age of the universe accordingly
i was going to post something similar (i usually use blockquote) but you pretty much hit it
i lol'ed when i saw "quantify outcomes"...
seriously..."quantify outcomes"...might as well say "keep toilet paper stocked"...the whole fskign world runs on quantified outcomes...i'm dismayed not because a M$ CEO is throwing out doublespeak BS...no, that is expected of course...it's what he chose to say that indicates his vision for M$ will be more of the same only more efficient internally
heh...
so above there are a few people arguing over whether parent is a 'plant' comment...
either way...it made me laugh
if MarsOne was in any way legit, nations and orgs would be lining up to get these payloads...Russia, China, ESA, NASA, MIT, UCLA, India, not to mention private companies including mining companies
i'd put a rover up to test preselected areas...
-OR-
have a rover -AND- a craft that detaches in orbit or before that goes an explores a pre-select asteroid
i saw someone suggest "Lego Mindstorms" above...that's where this is at...really...it'll be like a Raspberry Pi thing they select
it's different and you know it
anyone still reading...jeez...BTC isn't "money" like a currency is "money"
yeah...I addressed your point, directly...from the post you responded to:
the GOP controls the budget...exec branch included...this is the end of the discussion
"why not go after the worst offenders?"
"go after" means the Federal Government to **enforce** laws or pass new ones
Republicans block every effort to pass new Net Neutrality laws or enforce currenet ones
> enforcement: GOP excuse: "can't...no money to do it...we got us a budget crisis b/c of government spending"
> pass new laws: GOP excuse: "can't...new laws are 'regulation' and that's bad for business and jobs"
So the answer to "why not go after..." is simply BECAUSE REPUBLICANS
if you disagree...you must contradict my dual thesis...policy and laws exist and we enforce them...Republicans and Democrats control that...on both issues my thesis is that Democrats want to "go after verizon, comcast" and that Republicans oppose such actions by vote and by administrative decisions....you must show Republicans who advocate for both Net Neutrality AND increased enforcement/regulation on big teleco's specifically if you want to have a discussion
***scientific***
right...that means the reverse is true....***science cannont disprove the existence of "free will" either***
which agrees with me...my ORIGINAL POST said the exact same thing...it's even in the title...
questions of "what is intelligence?" and "what is free will?" are **not answerable by science**
"free will" and "intelligence" are socially constructed words to describe observations of human behavior....they "exist" as concepts only in the context of human interaction
you can say "free will is an illusion" but that doesn't take away my ability to sue you in court if you violate my "free will" by drugging me and raping me
so I'm right...science cannot disprove the existence of "free will"
you're trolling...but I want to respond for posterity as it is theoretically possible that someone could be misled by your response.
***IN EUROPE YOU CAN***
and you can take that money and exchange it for dollars **anywhere they exchange money**
you're attempt at finding fault in my conclusion is completely invalid...no official monetary issuing body accepts BTC
again...when I can pay my taxes and mortgage with BTC it is "money" until then it is a hobby currency
another thing, you missed my point (which I put in bold text) completely
my point was that discussions of "what is intelligence?" ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC OR COMPUTING QUESTIONS
sure, investigating how the human brain works is science...
and trying to make a faster/better computer by applying that knowledge is science...
but arguing language and definitions of abstract concepts?
philosophy major's job
if humans do not have free will, then email me your bank logins and passwords
also your home address
if you don't possess free will, let me get a few things in writing and we'll talk further
you criticize me for saying something, then tell me that the OP was right **for saying the same thing**
that was MY point...
intelligence IS NOT OBSERVER RELATIVE...that's why the Turing Test and Lovelace Test are completely unusable and foolish as a test of acheiving "artificial intelligence"
because they can **move the goalposts**
you're agreeing with me, getting upmodded...but talking as if you have presented a counterpoint
simply untrue...
why? your scenario is incomplete
what is the **context** of this test of the computer-brain hybrid person?
how long do i get to talk to them? can i spend all 24 hours of each day with them? I have many more questions about the complexity of the 'test' for this frankenstein
the whole notion that "if people think it is X then it is X" is a tautology...tell that to your philosophy friend
article headline is stupid...
ruling that something can be stolen does not prove it is "money"
anything of value that can be owned can be stolen (in monetary terms)
"money" is a dumb word to use as a milestone
BTC's problem is that it is not accepted as payment for things like taxes, mortgage payments, car payments...it's not accepted currency....it's a hobby currency
when you can pay your mortgage or taxes with BTC then it is "money"
Sorry about the bad link.
No.
you describe "behaviorism" which is a thoroughly discredited and reductive theory
the ***whole conversation*** is about ***the underlying mechanism***
the "Lovelace Test" is more rigorous, but how it will affect computing I cannot say, because the Turing Test itself is a time-wasting notion.
the problem: questions of "what is intelligence" are Philosophy 101 questions...not scientific or computing questions...and we hurt our industry when we overlap the two
just because we can prod a human to make them do something, or dose them with a chemical or whathaveyou, doesn't mean we have disproven the existence of "free will"
we will map every neural connection in the human brain soon, this doesn't mean all humans will become remote controlled techno-zombies
people take other's freedom by many means:
by gunpoint
emotional manipulation
through blackmail
too much alchohol
the Frey Effect
threats of loss of work
so learning how neurons work is just another potential addition to that list
the point: humans have free will and it can be subverted in many ways, this does not have any implications in computing
No, they aren't.
*some* are...like HTML5 & CSS3, but those standards had to be developed *in opposition* to what the W3C wanted...which was, as GP pointed out...more of the same
GP's only problem is that they assume that the "enormous stack of kluges" was not done with intention.
Take the HTML standard and the fight between the W3C & the WHATWG....the W3C wanted to the new standard to include bits that make it easier to track what users do and use DRM, and they stalled any attempt to change the standard
Only b/c of the WHATWG do we have HTML5/CSS3, and a functioning internet to even discuss this issue.
My point? GP is right...why?
**many coding problems are by design to make artificial scarcity**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
none of what you said is any kind of counterpoint to my comment
it's like you just wanted to show off how much you know about the blood-brain barrier
you have **no idea** as to the level of complexity of these things and what they are capable of doing