You simply confuse my point but bring to light some interesting ideas. Anyway the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce. This happens to be fun therefore recreational because of some evolutionary process. So yes the primary purpose of sex is recreational. The primary purpose happens to share the characteristic of being recreational.
However for the gun or whatever weapon, the primary use is to kill. It is used as a weapon of war. The secondary use is for recreation which is just shooting. The act of shooting a gun is recreational but that is its secondary use. The primary use is to kill which maybe fun or not. I would think its not fun to kill or be in war. Then again I haven't so I can't say first hand. However the mental impacts of war tend to point that it is not fun.
Now, getting back to BitTorrent. I would tend to agree that BitTorrent is analagous to gun use in that its primary use is recreational in nature. The difference here, however, is that BitTorrent's recreational use is more likely to be illegal in nature than not.
I'm sorry but the gun was not invented for recreational use. It was invented as a weapon of war to maim and destroy people. You think the gun was created so people can have gun clubs and target practice? Oh dear god I hope not. The vast majority of the times a gun is used in the world is not for fun. Unless you consider killing and scaring people fun then yes its recreational.
Anyway the BT and gun analogy is misleading. I don't think anyone is going to die from the misuse of BT. Oh maybe those poor artists will starve to death because you downloaded all their CDs. But other than that.. no one.
Why does the ribbon have to bend like it does towards the equator? Is this because the weight of the ribbon is much heavier than the counterweight? Also the earth is tilted couldn't you take advantage of that? This is all off the top of my head without any math so maybe I'm missing out some important component that prevents off-equator elevators that are perpendicular to the earth's surface.
I looked over you project and it's quite interesting. I like this quote.
Acovea was designed with "spikes" in mind -- short programs that implement a limited algorithm that runs quickly (2-10 seconds per run). Using the default evolutionary settings, Acovea will perform 4,000 compiles and runs of the benchmark; even with a very small and fast benchmark, this can take several hours. If your program takes a full minute to compiler, and another minute to run, Acovea will require 8,000 minutes, or more than 5.5 days to evolve optimal option sets!
So say I wanted optimize glibc... which takes for me about 2 hours to compile then I don't know how long to run a benchmark... say 30 minutes. 4000 x 2.5 hours is 10000 hours! 10000 / 24 = ~ 417 days!!!!
Of course you instead compile and benchmark smaller algorithms. I wonder what type of algorithms you test and how they relate to real world ones.
You mean fully usable... I have it installed now and it works great. Let me demonstrate... I can search through all the websites I have visited in the past couple days.. lets search for "troll"... aha 15 results and all of them slashdot.org!!!
See this is what happens when everyone gets a chance to add their input... Hobbits okay Elvish alright whatever... Galician.. uh... Martian.. alright thats enough... Quebecois... are you crazy?
As an incredibily wealthy billionaire who has made millions off the industrial-military complex that runs this country... who also happens to have a mansion in a remote location to avoid minorities, which lacks broadband access... I completey disagree with you. I'm just joking.. I have broadband access.
think they should erect some sort of memorial to all those GIs who died in the Korean conflict so South Koreans can enjoy high-speed online gaming. Something like a young korean teenager playing Everquest II with a ghost of a dead GI watching over his shoulder with a tear in his eye... oh man I'm choking up...
Heh being my major is mathematics and very likely to do undergrad work in mathematics I use the term "mathematically equivalent" strikingly different. I would never say a two physical objects are mathematically equivalent because to me that doesn't make any sense. I do say that two mathematical statements are mathematically equivalent. If I was to say two physical objects are mathemtically equivalent this would be a redundancy since I would have to be talking about the same object.
However I'm sure that in the physical sciences they use the term mathematically equivalent to talk about two models that explain the dynamics of a physical system. But understand you are saying that the mathematical formalism of the models are the same and not their actual physical existence. Sure they must share a very large set of properties for two physical systems to be modeled with the same mathematical formalism. But there must be something different or else you couldn't tell the two apart.
So rexamine H2O is water, yes this is "mathematically equivalent". However to say the statement pain is XYZ is "mathematically equivalent" I just don't buy.
Also I would hold that there MUST be some quantum behavior going on in the brain ie Penrose. I highly doubt that the brain is just a normal turing machine (deterministic or probalistic). My own personal feeling it must be a quantum turing machine. If this is true then simply copying one state to another state is not so simple if not impossible without destroying the state that was copied.
But if a dynamical system mathematically equivalent to the brain were constructed out of tinkertoys, transistors, or flushing toilets,I would argue that the equivalent dynamics in that state would also be "pain." I would also argue that one could conceive of no world where there are entities that could feel pain but not have those dynamics in their head, nor could one have those dynamics in their head and not feel pain.
I'm not sure what you mean by mathematically equivalent. Without that clause your statment loses it's power. Clarify.
thats why i used brain... not mind. i'm sure you're aware mind normally points to the mental part of the brain, while brain points to the physical part.
The whole basis of the anti-materialism today comes from one man. Saul Kripke in his book Naming and Necessity describes the problem of the mind/brain identity reduction. The following is a summary of his argument from one of my unpublished papers...
------------------
An interesting implication of Kripke semantics is the argument against identity theorists. Identity theorists hold that mental states can be identical to physical states. Take the sentence 'Pain is C-fiber stimulation'; for this sentence to be true in all possible worlds, 'pain' must be a rigid designator and so must 'C-fiber stimulation'. 'Pain' is obviously a rigid designator but what about 'C-fiber stimulation'. Surely we can conceive of a world where there are entities that lack C-fiber stimulation but feel pain or have C-fiber stimulation but do not feel pain. Is there any material identity to pain? Kripke says no, 'pain' is to have pain or is essential to pain. Therefore anything that fixes a reference to 'pain' must be pain.
-----------------
To explain further take the example H2O. Water is H2O is a necessary statement. The symbol H2O points to a model in which water is reduced down to it's chemical components. A world(universe) where the symbol H2O exists is also a world where water must also exist. There can be no other thing that H2O points towards that is not water and vice versa. Something similar is a bachelor is unmarried. This is a tautology.
Now think about the mental state of a color. Think of a patch of red. Then let XYZ equal the reduction of the color red. Today we think the symbol XYZ as a wavelength of photons. Now is there a possible world where XYZ exists and not the color red? Sure maybe when someone perceives XYZ they see the color blue. XYZ is red is not the same sort of statement as H2O is water.
So there are weaknesses in scientific materialism. Personally I believe materialism is true but needs to be adapted. I think Information Theory may lead to resolve some of these problems. But we must first understand that these problems do indeed exist and not shew them off because our own philosophical agenda is materialism.
we do not know how the brain works. sure we understand the chemical processes and can correlate them to trends in personality. we have some idea about memory and the input mechanism of the brain. however higher functions like language and consciousness we have only guesses on how these things come about.
the computer model of a brain is very popular when describing the brain. is the brain a simply a wet version of a turing machine? my own opinion the brain is a probabilistic version of a turing machine described in quantum mechanics. the argument against this is where is quantum mechanical behavior found in the brain? does the brain have processes that are small enough to take advantage of quantum mechanics?
the idea that the brain is a non-probabilistic turing machine or just a normal turing machine i believe is weak. evidence shows that some savants can crunch prime numbers faster than computers which are normal turing machines. it's known that quantum algorithms for prime number factorization are must faster then normal algorithms.
anyway we have a far way to go to understand how the brain works...
will they please have a woman doctor? I mean it's the 21st century and women have liberated themselves. I'm tired of the male dominance of the doctor role. So please BBC have a female doctor... and make her hot... and bisexual.
I totally couldn't agree more. Wikipedia is not a definitive source but most of the time just out of interest you can learn a lot. In reality citing any encyclopedia for serious research is unheard of. The last time I used an encyclopedia for a project and cited it was in elementary school.
How well did you do in high school? Did you get attention from your teachers and parents? I mean everyone needs a little praise once and awhile. Maybe his needs weren't being fulfilled in school but were in the underground, where praise and fame is more easily obtained. The offset like you mention is he doesn't get a proper education. Well everyone is human and if some our needs are not fulfilled we go elsewhere.
Anyway school is what you make of it. Personally out of everything I learned I say 30% was obtained from school. Really I find school to be a resource to my search for knowledge. It always helps to have an experienced professional to help you with things you get stuck on. Then again I've had some professors not talk to me because they only will talk about things we discuss in class.
Slashdot Mirror
You simply confuse my point but bring to light some interesting ideas. Anyway the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce. This happens to be fun therefore recreational because of some evolutionary process. So yes the primary purpose of sex is recreational. The primary purpose happens to share the characteristic of being recreational.
However for the gun or whatever weapon, the primary use is to kill. It is used as a weapon of war. The secondary use is for recreation which is just shooting. The act of shooting a gun is recreational but that is its secondary use. The primary use is to kill which maybe fun or not. I would think its not fun to kill or be in war. Then again I haven't so I can't say first hand. However the mental impacts of war tend to point that it is not fun.
Now, getting back to BitTorrent. I would tend to agree that BitTorrent is analagous to gun use in that its primary use is recreational in nature. The difference here, however, is that BitTorrent's recreational use is more likely to be illegal in nature than not.
I'm sorry but the gun was not invented for recreational use. It was invented as a weapon of war to maim and destroy people. You think the gun was created so people can have gun clubs and target practice? Oh dear god I hope not. The vast majority of the times a gun is used in the world is not for fun. Unless you consider killing and scaring people fun then yes its recreational.
Anyway the BT and gun analogy is misleading. I don't think anyone is going to die from the misuse of BT. Oh maybe those poor artists will starve to death because you downloaded all their CDs. But other than that.. no one.
Why does the ribbon have to bend like it does towards the equator? Is this because the weight of the ribbon is much heavier than the counterweight? Also the earth is tilted couldn't you take advantage of that? This is all off the top of my head without any math so maybe I'm missing out some important component that prevents off-equator elevators that are perpendicular to the earth's surface.
Check this link out. It'll blow your mind how a space elevator not anchored at the equator is possible!!!
all major cities will have a space elevator just like airports and subways... or not.
that Serre's Conjecture was already proven?
or else my new child wouldnt be able to updated with the new Microsoft GP SP3 v11... this time without diabetes!!!
*jumps into the air*
not to self: find own DNA sequence and patent it... before THEY do....
I looked over you project and it's quite interesting. I like this quote.
Acovea was designed with "spikes" in mind -- short programs that implement a limited algorithm that runs quickly (2-10 seconds per run). Using the default evolutionary settings, Acovea will perform 4,000 compiles and runs of the benchmark; even with a very small and fast benchmark, this can take several hours. If your program takes a full minute to compiler, and another minute to run, Acovea will require 8,000 minutes, or more than 5.5 days to evolve optimal option sets!
So say I wanted optimize glibc... which takes for me about 2 hours to compile then I don't know how long to run a benchmark... say 30 minutes. 4000 x 2.5 hours is 10000 hours! 10000 / 24 = ~ 417 days!!!!
Of course you instead compile and benchmark smaller algorithms. I wonder what type of algorithms you test and how they relate to real world ones.
Yeah... until Google Slavery is released in the next coming months... not to be confused with Sim Slavery.. that is what happens to EA employees.
You mean fully usable... I have it installed now and it works great. Let me demonstrate... I can search through all the websites I have visited in the past couple days.. lets search for "troll"... aha 15 results and all of them slashdot.org!!!
No I'm serious.
See this is what happens when everyone gets a chance to add their input... Hobbits okay Elvish alright whatever... Galician.. uh... Martian.. alright thats enough... Quebecois... are you crazy?
And foreigners wonder why Americans hate them... their lack of sense for sarcasm!!!
As an incredibily wealthy billionaire who has made millions off the industrial-military complex that runs this country... who also happens to have a mansion in a remote location to avoid minorities, which lacks broadband access... I completey disagree with you. I'm just joking.. I have broadband access.
think they should erect some sort of memorial to all those GIs who died in the Korean conflict so South Koreans can enjoy high-speed online gaming. Something like a young korean teenager playing Everquest II with a ghost of a dead GI watching over his shoulder with a tear in his eye... oh man I'm choking up...
undergrad=grad ;)
Heh being my major is mathematics and very likely to do undergrad work in mathematics I use the term "mathematically equivalent" strikingly different. I would never say a two physical objects are mathematically equivalent because to me that doesn't make any sense. I do say that two mathematical statements are mathematically equivalent. If I was to say two physical objects are mathemtically equivalent this would be a redundancy since I would have to be talking about the same object.
However I'm sure that in the physical sciences they use the term mathematically equivalent to talk about two models that explain the dynamics of a physical system. But understand you are saying that the mathematical formalism of the models are the same and not their actual physical existence. Sure they must share a very large set of properties for two physical systems to be modeled with the same mathematical formalism. But there must be something different or else you couldn't tell the two apart.
So rexamine H2O is water, yes this is "mathematically equivalent". However to say the statement pain is XYZ is "mathematically equivalent" I just don't buy.
Also I would hold that there MUST be some quantum behavior going on in the brain ie Penrose. I highly doubt that the brain is just a normal turing machine (deterministic or probalistic). My own personal feeling it must be a quantum turing machine. If this is true then simply copying one state to another state is not so simple if not impossible without destroying the state that was copied.
But if a dynamical system mathematically equivalent to the brain were constructed out of tinkertoys, transistors, or flushing toilets,I would argue that the equivalent dynamics in that state would also be "pain." I would also argue that one could conceive of no world where there are entities that could feel pain but not have those dynamics in their head, nor could one have those dynamics in their head and not feel pain.
I'm not sure what you mean by mathematically equivalent. Without that clause your statment loses it's power. Clarify.
thats why i used brain... not mind. i'm sure you're aware mind normally points to the mental part of the brain, while brain points to the physical part.
you made the classic mistake. XD
The whole basis of the anti-materialism today comes from one man. Saul Kripke in his book Naming and Necessity describes the problem of the mind/brain identity reduction. The following is a summary of his argument from one of my unpublished papers...
------------------
An interesting implication of Kripke semantics is the argument against identity theorists. Identity theorists hold that mental states can be identical to physical states. Take the sentence 'Pain is C-fiber stimulation'; for this sentence to be true in all possible worlds, 'pain' must be a rigid designator and so must 'C-fiber stimulation'. 'Pain' is obviously a rigid designator but what about 'C-fiber stimulation'. Surely we can conceive of a world where there are entities that lack C-fiber stimulation but feel pain or have C-fiber stimulation but do not feel pain. Is there any material identity to pain? Kripke says no, 'pain' is to have pain or is essential to pain. Therefore anything that fixes a reference to 'pain' must be pain.
-----------------
To explain further take the example H2O. Water is H2O is a necessary statement. The symbol H2O points to a model in which water is reduced down to it's chemical components. A world(universe) where the symbol H2O exists is also a world where water must also exist. There can be no other thing that H2O points towards that is not water and vice versa. Something similar is a bachelor is unmarried. This is a tautology.
Now think about the mental state of a color. Think of a patch of red. Then let XYZ equal the reduction of the color red. Today we think the symbol XYZ as a wavelength of photons. Now is there a possible world where XYZ exists and not the color red? Sure maybe when someone perceives XYZ they see the color blue. XYZ is red is not the same sort of statement as H2O is water.
So there are weaknesses in scientific materialism. Personally I believe materialism is true but needs to be adapted. I think Information Theory may lead to resolve some of these problems. But we must first understand that these problems do indeed exist and not shew them off because our own philosophical agenda is materialism.
we do not know how the brain works. sure we understand the chemical processes and can correlate them to trends in personality. we have some idea about memory and the input mechanism of the brain. however higher functions like language and consciousness we have only guesses on how these things come about.
the computer model of a brain is very popular when describing the brain. is the brain a simply a wet version of a turing machine? my own opinion the brain is a probabilistic version of a turing machine described in quantum mechanics. the argument against this is where is quantum mechanical behavior found in the brain? does the brain have processes that are small enough to take advantage of quantum mechanics?
the idea that the brain is a non-probabilistic turing machine or just a normal turing machine i believe is weak. evidence shows that some savants can crunch prime numbers faster than computers which are normal turing machines. it's known that quantum algorithms for prime number factorization are must faster then normal algorithms.
anyway we have a far way to go to understand how the brain works...
will they please have a woman doctor? I mean it's the 21st century and women have liberated themselves. I'm tired of the male dominance of the doctor role. So please BBC have a female doctor... and make her hot... and bisexual.
Laura DiDio and RMS? Yeah.. I think so.
maybe evolution is entropy... now thats interesting.
I totally couldn't agree more. Wikipedia is not a definitive source but most of the time just out of interest you can learn a lot. In reality citing any encyclopedia for serious research is unheard of. The last time I used an encyclopedia for a project and cited it was in elementary school.
How well did you do in high school? Did you get attention from your teachers and parents? I mean everyone needs a little praise once and awhile. Maybe his needs weren't being fulfilled in school but were in the underground, where praise and fame is more easily obtained. The offset like you mention is he doesn't get a proper education. Well everyone is human and if some our needs are not fulfilled we go elsewhere.
Anyway school is what you make of it. Personally out of everything I learned I say 30% was obtained from school. Really I find school to be a resource to my search for knowledge. It always helps to have an experienced professional to help you with things you get stuck on. Then again I've had some professors not talk to me because they only will talk about things we discuss in class.