The article mentioned the cars getting stuck in the corner. This is a problem with the NN architecture used. Backing up requires a very different sort of behavior than normal driving, so you require a way for your architecture to keep track of a particular state, and change behavior as you progress through that state (you need to back up for a set amount of time, then go forward and change direction). This problem is made clearer when imagining the absurdity of trying to get a simple NN like this one to learn how to parallel park. The solution is to add a node or two which maintain their values over time (i.e. they are not directly fed into by sensors) in order to set the car into different states. So, after evolving, one of the nodes will come to represent "back up" state. When the car gets stuck in a corner, the backup node will become activated, and will stay activated for long enough for the car to actually back up! I shouldn't have to mention that this is probably a difficult thing for the car to learn on its own, but without these extra memory nodes it is impossible.
Believe it or not, the tactical requirements and logical deductions in a high level of competition can be related to many different puzzles (just like in chess).
I choose not to believe it -unless of course you have some evidence? Right -didn't think so. This oft repeated "chess skills are widely applicable" line is pure bullocks, and I imagine the same goes for "tactical requirements and logical deductions in a high level of competition". While I have not come across any studies indicating that chess skills are transferable to other domains, I have in fact come across those that demonstrate the opposite. In fact, my brother worked on one such study. Turns out that experienced chess players are significantly better than inexperienced players at remembering the locations of board positions. So they have better memory? nope -as soon as you ask them to do a memory related task with anything other than chess pieces, their ability drops to that of an inexperienced player.
It is absolutely a matter of style, and wooden computers -I hate to say it because of the amount of time that this guy spent making it- are not particularly good style. Where will a wooden computer fit in? Technology is not supposed to look wooden. They tried it with tvs too, in case anyone remembers. Who has wooden tvs these days? They look like crap.
A wooden computer might fit in well in a cottage, but why would you want a computer in a cottage anyways?
Why do research on piloting a squadron of aerial drones? Haven't these people ever played an RTS? It's easy to control a squadron of units -you just offload the tactical decisions to the units themselves and deliver only high level, strategic commands. You can even leave the option of controlling individual units open.
Terminator 2 was, according to many sources, one of the greatest movies of all time. It was in my opinion the greatest action movie of all time. And, it dealt with the topics of artificial intelligence and time travel better than most other movies sci-fi movies. On top of that, Cameron's presentation of the dichotomy between hard/soft AI as presented between the T800 and the T1000 was staggeringly prescient -it mirrors exactly the development that occurred in the actual world of AI, as research progressed from classical, rigid AI to the more fluid, behavior based AI.
The film tackles time travel, artificial intelligence, consciousness, human emotion, human nature, fate versus free will, and other topics. If you are willing to carry the ideas it presents to you, there is a lot of meaningful content there to think about. If you aren't willing to put in that intellectual effort, you get an incredible action movie anyways. But the philosophy is there. For example, John Conner asks the Terminator if it hurts when he gets shot, to which the Terminator responds "I sense injuries -the data could be called pain." There is a lot of discussion that could evolve from this single line. In what way is his "pain" different from our "pain", for example? The character's albeit brief lines are charged with content "I know now why you cry, but it's something I could never do" -we are given a glimpse into the mind of a Terminator, who we now know is capable of comprehending human emotion at an entirely logical level.
Another line: "it's in your nature to destroy yourselves" Again, there is so much discussion that can evolve from this line, using the film as a backdrop. This is the fate versus free will theme manifested on the social level. The main theme of the movie is the characters attempting to forge their destiny
(freewill) in the face of fate, but we are also confronted with the fate of perhaps humankind. This movie really can make you think, if you are willing to. Another line, "The unknown future rolls toward us, and for once I face it with a sense of hope. Because if a machine -a Terminator- can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too."
I could go on, but I don't think I could do the movie justice. Go watch it -I'm serious- and appreciate the fact that you basically get non-stop action coupled with serious, thought provoking philosophy. Terminator 2 is an intelligent, action packed, brilliantly directed epic.
I am stunned. Do you listen to yourself when you talk? "robots won't have souls"? wtf? Okay smart guy, tell me which scientist it was that identified the existence of a soul. Don't know of one? Didn't think so. Get your religious ideology out of our intellectual discourse.
I will no doubt be offending fans of Captain America with this post, but frankly, I'm glad he's gone. I never liked Captain America for one very important reason: he took the place of the superhero who should have served as a patriotic, shield-wielding warrior -Captain Canada. What I'm trying to say is this: Captain Canada should have been the super hero with the shield. Think about it. If we are picking an item to represent the policies of the US, is a shield really the right one? Wouldn't a stealth missile be more appropriate? Canada's policies are much more defensive, and America's much more offensive -Captain Canada should have the shield, not Captain America. On top of that, Canada has the god damn Canadian Shield! The "Shield" is part of our countries geography!
most of the comments on this discussion board are jokes, but this is a serious issue. A section of my honours project, the topic of which is consciousness, covers the possibility of conscious robots. I would like to post some of this project for your comments/criticisms.
As our computational models of cognition improve and the field of artificial intelligence advances, the question of whether a computer could be conscious becomes increasingly pertinent. If Searle is right, and only biological entities can be conscious, then we have nothing to worry about. But if Searle is wrong, and our advanced computer programs might one day possess conscious experiences, there are a slew of issues that need to be debated. Our understanding of the nature of consciousness is crucial to adjudicating issues related to advanced artificial intelligences.
A naïve suggestion to the moral issues of AI would be to simply not program consciousness into our machines -just don't put in the consciousness chip (it worked for Data on Star Trek). But it's not that simple. Imagine, for example, that we desire a very complex planetary probe to explore conditions inside an asteroid. The probe should take samples, should monitor the environment around it, should plan its own course, should make decisions for itself, and so on. It is entirely possible that, just in virtue of possessing these computational capacities, the probe would be conscious -a computationalist would say so. In the same way, it is also possible that certain sensors would cause pain to the probe when they are activated (for example if it was navigating too closely to an extremely hot substance). In an episode of the Simpson's, a humanoid robot that had caught flame was seen running out of burning building, shouting "Why? Why was I programmed to feel pain?" In that context the incident was funny. But suppose there was a fire in the factory producing the previously described probes. There is a genuine concern that the artifacts we produce as a result of advancement in the field of AI will be capable of experiencing the world to the same degree that we do, or perhaps even more so. There is perhaps a greater concern that we will not recognize conscious machines when they are among us, or worse, that we will wrongly conclude that they are unfeeling automatons. This issue cannot be resolved without a good scientific understanding of the nature of consciousness.
Researchers interested in cognition would no doubt benefit from being able to run computer simulations of cognitive systems. But some theories of consciousness predict that the right sort of simulation might be more than a simulation -it might actually be consciousness (perhaps in this context it would be more accurate to say that the "wrong sort of simulation might be more than a simulation"). Before constructing virtual minds that might have genuine conscious experiences we need to have a better understanding of what sort of systems are conscious, and further to this, what our moral obligations are with respect to such systems. The same is true of any advanced artificial intelligence projects.
[...section removed...]
As is often the case, science fiction provides an excellent illustration of the sort of entity that I have in mind. In the movie Terminator 2, an incredibly advanced android is sent back in time to protect a young boy. In one scene, the boy asks the Terminator if it hurts when he gets shot, to which the android responds, "I sense injuries. The data could be called pain." The boy's question wasn't quite answered. In what way is this pain different from our pain? Does it "hurt" in any comparable way? The androids brain is doing something very similar to what our cognitive systems are doing -namely, registering physical damage. And yet, something seems suspiciously different, especially when the android fails to wince as bullets are removed from its back using a pair of pliers. The Terminator
Every download of the demo I've played (and the retail game) has an african-american as the default character.
Just say black, damnit, not "African American". All black people don't come from Africa. Also, there is nothing offensive about being called black, so I don't understand why you need to use some silly cover term. Trust me on this -no one is going to be offended by your recognition of the fact that their skin has a darker pigment than your own (yes, I can tell that you're not black).
erm... it isn't as meaningful - it would be better if marriage rates were provided - but it is still meaningful. Even without marriage rates, it's sufficiently more meaningful than the data provided by the post I was responding to (ie no data whatsoever) to warrant disagreeing with his position.
Landoverbaptist...very informative site...."tongue - tool of the devil":)
Yes -the first link is a parody of the "hell house" concept, not a real site. In my haste to provide examples of this phenomenon I chose the first google hit. Nevertheless, the purpose of the links I provided was to illustrate both the pervasiveness and perversity of so called "hell houses". To this end, I believe that a parody site is indeed valuable (even if for unintended reasons). If you disagree, then stick to the wikipedia entry. My point still stands.
.... and belief in a rosy afterlife will make you live longer and pass on that trait. I mean, what's the size of an average Catholic family compared to the lonely angry atheist?
You are implying religious folks have healthier families than atheists, but atheists actually have a lower divorce rate. Do some research -don't just rely on your gut and tired stereotypes.
Of course, it is true that christians will have more kids just because they have so many ass backwards beliefs about contraception and abortion. But this also means that those kids are more likely to be unwanted.
While we're on the topic of whether christian families are more healthy than atheists, let me also point out that scaring kids into your belief system with tales of eternal torture is tantamount to child abuse (and it should be punished as such). Some christian groups go so far as to set up "hell houses" where children can be terrorized by productions designed specifically to scare children into mental submission. For example:
amendment: I realize I may have misinterpreted the previous poster. They are right to worry about the preservation of code in the absence of natural selection insofar as the information will degrade via mutation. While the information will spread throughout the population, there is nothing to keep it from gradually degrading.
DNA that isn't functional has a high rate of change.
If it's wrong and functional it dies, and only correct copies live on. If it's just data, being wrong does nothing and just keeps degrading further. This is also how we figure out how far distant relatives or species are apart as well, the "junk" DNA will diverge at a fairly steady rate over time.
So, cute trick, but that's all.
C'mon, give it a fair chance! Let's say that the researchers surround the message in a contiguous block of text meant simply as a marker. Then future researchers could, by analyzing the degree of degradation of the marker, figure out at what point the message was written. A statistical analysis of a population of bacteria could preesumably provide enough information to reassemble the message. Besides, it is possible in principle to write the same message fifty times on one of these things. The more times you write it, the more resilient it is to degradation, since a statistical analysis (on just one individual) will allow you to reassemble the message. Do these ideas provide even a glimmer of hope for this technique? What do you think?
The biggest problem is that non-coding dna is not selectively preserved.
Actually, genetic sequences which are irrelevant to the survival of the entity (as these sequences presumably are) spread through a population and thus are preserved. It is not as rapid as if it provided a benefit, but they spread nonetheless. In a 5th year AI class I actually did experiments with evolutionary computation, looking at genetic changes which had no affect on the fitness of the individuals. The purpose of the experiments was actually to explore whether variation in a population, even if it didn't have any effect of the fitness of the individuals, was a good thing (basically) -turns out it is. But I also learned that even without selection pressure, mutations/new genetic information, spreads (actually rather quickly) through a population.
This is neither a ridiculous nor trivial idea. There's a vast body of work in philosophy and brain science that tells us that it is so. While our intuition says it ain't so, history has shown that intuition isn't very good when it comes to the profoundest truths. "That's ridiculous!" was most probably the first response to the person who declared that the earth is not flat. Think also of the how our intuition fails us when it come to biological evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics.
You seem fairly convinced of your conclusion so I wonder whether you are even willing to consider the possibility that you are mistaken. I will write this post anyways, in the hope that you might be willing to consider my arguments and perhaps change your mind.
You mentioned a "vast body of work in philosophy and brain science". I must point out that the body of work in "brain science" (you probably should have said "cognitive sciences"), is utterly irrelevant -this is strictly a philosophical issue. Having said that, it is worth noting that by no means is there consensus within the domain of philosophy with respect to freewill. Allow me to briefly survey the issue (while ultimately irrelevant to the truth of the matter I think I should also point out that I have roughly a solid three semesters worth of philosophy courses in my degree and no less than an A+ in any of them)
Some people pose as a test for freewill the following: if someone, in retrospect, "could have done otherwise", then their action was done freely. This puts freewill at odds with determinism, since determinism clearly implies that a person could NOT have done otherwise. So we have a choice between determinism and freewill. Science tells us our brains are deterministic, and so we don't have freewill. End of story? Hardly. The above definition of freewill is rather naive and by no means agreed upon by all.
Freewill is defined by others as "the ability to choose", which is not, as you mentioned in an earlier post, just a rephrasing of freewill. "Choosing" is a cognitive act which is achieved by certain information processing agents. When an agent takes in sensory information, evaluates that information, and selects one of several behavioral options, it is said to be engaged in the process of choosing. It is in virtue of instantiating this process -which can be understood in entirely deterministic terms- that a creature is said to have possess freewill. In other words, as an information processing agent navigates through its world of various sensory percepts and so on, it chooses (deterministically) which options to take, based on its cognitive architecture and perhaps some grab bag of useful heuristics -this is freewill. I am describing a compatabilist position, which is a third position on the nature of freewill. A compatabilist believes in both determinism and freewill, because they define freewill in a more sensible way (I don't want to go into the specifics of the debate on how to properly define freewill -it is long and rather boring. To make it short, just rest assured that the first definition is metaphysically bankrupt as a concept, and the second is more in line with our evidence for proposing the concept of freewill in the first place).
Because it often comes up, I would like to briefly mention quantum mechanics -specifically quantum indeterminacy. Some people cite quantum indeterminacy as a solution to the problem of freewill -e.g. the universe is not determined after all, so is consistent with freewill! I happen to think this is a quite silly solution to the problem -as if random quantum events could somehow be responsible for freewill! Freewill is about choosing, about forging our own way forward, and randomness is no better for that than determinism. Also, this QM solution accepts the dichotomy discussed earlier -determinism versus freewill- which I have already shown is not the only way of looking at the problem -the compatabilist position offers a way out of this two sided way of looking at the problem.
It seems fairly self important to assume that they didn't understand the math behind the tiles. They generated them, didn't they? Islamic culture was well considered to be centuries ahead of Europe during that time period. They had access to some of the ancient Greek writings that Europe only rediscovered years later. My question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened? From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now. Since depictions of the prophet are forbidden, Islamic art focuses of patterns and designs. It is therefore not "self important", as you describe it, to presume that perhaps their art was simply art, without mathematical justification.
In answer to the question of "what happened" to islamic culture, the answer is "religion happened". Anti-intellectualism swept their culture clean of vile rationality.
it does not give us information about the possiblity of life (as we know it, Jim) since these aren't the places we would find life in this solar system either.
Even if we are only looking at gas giants, at the very, very least, wouldn't it help us better understand the chemical makeup of neighbouring solar systems, and aid in the development of more accurate models of solar system formation (which will in turn help us better understand the probability of life elsewhere a la Drake equation)? Isn't it also quite possible that knowing the chemical makeup of gas giants might provide evidence for the existence and makeup of nearby celestial bodies (given some model of solar system formation)? I am by no means well informed in the domain of solar system formation, but it seems just obvious that there would be some statistical correlations between the chemical makeup of the gas giants and the chemical makeup of the smaller planets that share a common star -is this totally wrong? Might it not also be the case that the number and makeup of gas giants will provide evidence for the number and makeup of smaller planets (again, given some model of solar system formation)?
On the other hand, I don't know what the effective range is on these RFID chips. If it is more than 30 feet, then I'd definitely worry. If it's less than 3 feet, then by-hand scanning or pass-through-booth scanning are the only ways of effectively managing that.
If it's between those two ranges, then... I wouldn't panic. Yet.
I don't think you've fully appreciated the potential for people to do nefarious things with technology of this sort. I'm not trying to be paranoid, but let's just say for the sake of argument that a government body was interested in keeping tracking of people who attended a protest (I know its far fetched but humour me). First, note that their method doesn't have to be 100% effective -those in charge will be happy with a system that identifies protestors with say, 60% efficacy. Second, note that it is not at all difficult for a government to figure out a way to get a scanner within three feet of somebody. Let's just say for example, passing a law that allows installation of readers on ATM machines, or on doorways in certain buildings. Sure, if you were worried about these privacy issues you could avoid ATMs and doorways, plus you would be safe 40% of the time (assuming the 60% efficacy number is realistic), but these are hefty prices to pay for the ability to attend protests. We should be glad that privacy advocates are kicking up a fuss about this technology -we have to keep on our toes to ensure that our laws and society allows this technology to come to fruition in such a way that our rights are not put in jeopardy. This is the concern -not what specific scenarios might or might not occur as a result of the technolgies induction into society, but what we have to do now to ensure as best we can that the door is not left open for bad things to occur at all. Given the nature of the technology we are discussing, concerns over privacy are well justified.
Fourth of all, all of this is theoretical so far since we haven't done it. Maybe our models are all wrong and this will in fact create a black hole capable of consuming everything around it and eventually the Earth and solar system. Probably not, but you can't really rule anything out completely.
This is not scientific thinking, and it shouldn't be granted any credence. You need to get some evidence to support your views. Your cautionary assertion is on par with the following: never write the letters "CKGJSHDFKLNJNSDFH" on a piece of paper -we don't know what would happen since it has never been done, and it might end life on earth (you can't rule it out completely). Both claims are just about equally substantiated.
Second, the only reason we have to believe in black holes is because of our scientific models, and now you are jumping up and down warning us that our models might be wrong? You would be standing on firmer philosophical ground by rejecting the notion that a black hole will be created at all (there you are just being a skeptic about theoretical entities). But your position as it stands is contradictory -you claim our models might be wrong and black holes might eat the planet, but yet you trust those theories in predicting the appearance of a black hole.
Am I the only one concerned that making mini-black holes might suck in the whole earth?
You're not the only one worrying, but trust me, there's no danger of this whatsoever. First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation. Second of all, they are so tiny that they will rarely (if ever) get close enough to swallow something else. Remember, on an atomic scale there is mostly space. And these things are not just small -they are so small its hard to fathom. They are formed by smashing together protons moving at 99.999999% the speed of light. A black hole (might) be formed, if, during the collision, the resultant density of the object is greater than the density required to form a black hole. The gravity will be no greater than the mass of the objects combining it, so you don't need to worry about it sucking things in. Let me jsut give you an example. A basketball could, theoretically, become a black hole, so long as you compressed its mass into a small enough area -but it would still have the gravitational pull of a basketball. And here, we are talking about turning protons into blackholes! In short, nothing to worry about chap!
I thought of this very system over three years ago, although it wasn't for the nefarious purpose of forcing school children to watch targetted ads. The idea actually was to set up a system whereby internet users could sit down, and watch ads for a few minutes to earn some money (sell your time). Obviously I take let's say 2% of what they get. I needed a way to check if the user was actually watching the ads, and the system sounds remarkably what MS guys were able to come up with. I didn't have the time to set up the site.
This situation to me highlights some of the annoying aspects of patents. First, if I had billions of dollars of cash lying around, I would have this patent (would've applied without a second thought). How then, is this system helping individual innovators rather than big corporations? Second, isn't it clear that the patent system isn't promoting R and D in this particular case?
On the plus side, I do believe a site has recently popped up that does what I wanted to do, and they probably have implemented a comparable system. Therefore, MS might lose this patent on the grounds of prior art, which is a plus.
Also, I wonder whether MS intends to charge for the webcams being provided, since they are required for the face tracking, but the schools might not (and probably don't) want them.
We have more 3rd parties in Canadian politics than the US, but they serve more to offset the balance of power and have no real chance at governing (NDP, Greens, Bloc Quebecois).
Actually NDP and libs were about neck and neck during the last election (within a few percentage points). No one really noticed because the big story was the conservatives winning. The NDPs greatest obstacle is getting the Canadian population to stop believing that the NDP will never win. They have alot of support. On top of that, because of our stupid voting system, there are ALOT of would-be NDP voters who are scared of the conservative party winning, and end up voting strategically in favour of libs. It is worth noting that all of our small useless parties are left leaning. It is also worth noting that our one big right leaning party was formed by combining two smaller right leaning parties. You can thank our voting system for this stupid states of affairs where the majority of Canadians are clearly and decisively left leaning, but we are ruled by a minority conservative government. Crappy.
I am a bit disappointed in the federal government now though..
Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society...
I don't know all the facts o-n Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.
I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage.
In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
"I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians
I have nothing else to add except that I am saddened by the current leadership of my country .
Slashdot Mirror
The article mentioned the cars getting stuck in the corner. This is a problem with the NN architecture used. Backing up requires a very different sort of behavior than normal driving, so you require a way for your architecture to keep track of a particular state, and change behavior as you progress through that state (you need to back up for a set amount of time, then go forward and change direction). This problem is made clearer when imagining the absurdity of trying to get a simple NN like this one to learn how to parallel park. The solution is to add a node or two which maintain their values over time (i.e. they are not directly fed into by sensors) in order to set the car into different states. So, after evolving, one of the nodes will come to represent "back up" state. When the car gets stuck in a corner, the backup node will become activated, and will stay activated for long enough for the car to actually back up! I shouldn't have to mention that this is probably a difficult thing for the car to learn on its own, but without these extra memory nodes it is impossible.
Believe it or not, the tactical requirements and logical deductions in a high level of competition can be related to many different puzzles (just like in chess).
I choose not to believe it -unless of course you have some evidence? Right -didn't think so. This oft repeated "chess skills are widely applicable" line is pure bullocks, and I imagine the same goes for "tactical requirements and logical deductions in a high level of competition". While I have not come across any studies indicating that chess skills are transferable to other domains, I have in fact come across those that demonstrate the opposite. In fact, my brother worked on one such study. Turns out that experienced chess players are significantly better than inexperienced players at remembering the locations of board positions. So they have better memory? nope -as soon as you ask them to do a memory related task with anything other than chess pieces, their ability drops to that of an inexperienced player.
It is absolutely a matter of style, and wooden computers -I hate to say it because of the amount of time that this guy spent making it- are not particularly good style. Where will a wooden computer fit in? Technology is not supposed to look wooden. They tried it with tvs too, in case anyone remembers. Who has wooden tvs these days? They look like crap. A wooden computer might fit in well in a cottage, but why would you want a computer in a cottage anyways?
Why do research on piloting a squadron of aerial drones? Haven't these people ever played an RTS? It's easy to control a squadron of units -you just offload the tactical decisions to the units themselves and deliver only high level, strategic commands. You can even leave the option of controlling individual units open.
B movies? B MOVIES?
Terminator 2 was, according to many sources, one of the greatest movies of all time. It was in my opinion the greatest action movie of all time. And, it dealt with the topics of artificial intelligence and time travel better than most other movies sci-fi movies. On top of that, Cameron's presentation of the dichotomy between hard/soft AI as presented between the T800 and the T1000 was staggeringly prescient -it mirrors exactly the development that occurred in the actual world of AI, as research progressed from classical, rigid AI to the more fluid, behavior based AI.
The film tackles time travel, artificial intelligence, consciousness, human emotion, human nature, fate versus free will, and other topics. If you are willing to carry the ideas it presents to you, there is a lot of meaningful content there to think about. If you aren't willing to put in that intellectual effort, you get an incredible action movie anyways. But the philosophy is there. For example, John Conner asks the Terminator if it hurts when he gets shot, to which the Terminator responds "I sense injuries -the data could be called pain." There is a lot of discussion that could evolve from this single line. In what way is his "pain" different from our "pain", for example? The character's albeit brief lines are charged with content "I know now why you cry, but it's something I could never do" -we are given a glimpse into the mind of a Terminator, who we now know is capable of comprehending human emotion at an entirely logical level.
Another line: "it's in your nature to destroy yourselves" Again, there is so much discussion that can evolve from this line, using the film as a backdrop. This is the fate versus free will theme manifested on the social level. The main theme of the movie is the characters attempting to forge their destiny (freewill) in the face of fate, but we are also confronted with the fate of perhaps humankind. This movie really can make you think, if you are willing to. Another line, "The unknown future rolls toward us, and for once I face it with a sense of hope. Because if a machine -a Terminator- can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too."
I could go on, but I don't think I could do the movie justice. Go watch it -I'm serious- and appreciate the fact that you basically get non-stop action coupled with serious, thought provoking philosophy. Terminator 2 is an intelligent, action packed, brilliantly directed epic.
I am stunned. Do you listen to yourself when you talk? "robots won't have souls"? wtf? Okay smart guy, tell me which scientist it was that identified the existence of a soul. Don't know of one? Didn't think so. Get your religious ideology out of our intellectual discourse.
I will no doubt be offending fans of Captain America with this post, but frankly, I'm glad he's gone. I never liked Captain America for one very important reason: he took the place of the superhero who should have served as a patriotic, shield-wielding warrior -Captain Canada. What I'm trying to say is this: Captain Canada should have been the super hero with the shield. Think about it. If we are picking an item to represent the policies of the US, is a shield really the right one? Wouldn't a stealth missile be more appropriate? Canada's policies are much more defensive, and America's much more offensive -Captain Canada should have the shield, not Captain America. On top of that, Canada has the god damn Canadian Shield! The "Shield" is part of our countries geography!
Every download of the demo I've played (and the retail game) has an african-american as the default character.
Just say black, damnit, not "African American". All black people don't come from Africa. Also, there is nothing offensive about being called black, so I don't understand why you need to use some silly cover term. Trust me on this -no one is going to be offended by your recognition of the fact that their skin has a darker pigment than your own (yes, I can tell that you're not black).
This isn't meaningful data without marriage rates
erm... it isn't as meaningful - it would be better if marriage rates were provided - but it is still meaningful. Even without marriage rates, it's sufficiently more meaningful than the data provided by the post I was responding to (ie no data whatsoever) to warrant disagreeing with his position.
Landoverbaptist ...very informative site...."tongue - tool of the devil" :)
Yes -the first link is a parody of the "hell house" concept, not a real site. In my haste to provide examples of this phenomenon I chose the first google hit. Nevertheless, the purpose of the links I provided was to illustrate both the pervasiveness and perversity of so called "hell houses". To this end, I believe that a parody site is indeed valuable (even if for unintended reasons). If you disagree, then stick to the wikipedia entry. My point still stands.
.... and belief in a rosy afterlife will make you live longer and pass on that trait. I mean, what's the size of an average Catholic family compared to the lonely angry atheist?
. html
You are implying religious folks have healthier families than atheists, but atheists actually have a lower divorce rate. Do some research -don't just rely on your gut and tired stereotypes.
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Of course, it is true that christians will have more kids just because they have so many ass backwards beliefs about contraception and abortion. But this also means that those kids are more likely to be unwanted.
While we're on the topic of whether christian families are more healthy than atheists, let me also point out that scaring kids into your belief system with tales of eternal torture is tantamount to child abuse (and it should be punished as such). Some christian groups go so far as to set up "hell houses" where children can be terrorized by productions designed specifically to scare children into mental submission. For example:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1099/hellhouse
wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_house
Christians have more happy families? yea right. do some research before running your mouth.
amendment: I realize I may have misinterpreted the previous poster. They are right to worry about the preservation of code in the absence of natural selection insofar as the information will degrade via mutation. While the information will spread throughout the population, there is nothing to keep it from gradually degrading.
DNA that isn't functional has a high rate of change. If it's wrong and functional it dies, and only correct copies live on. If it's just data, being wrong does nothing and just keeps degrading further. This is also how we figure out how far distant relatives or species are apart as well, the "junk" DNA will diverge at a fairly steady rate over time. So, cute trick, but that's all.
C'mon, give it a fair chance! Let's say that the researchers surround the message in a contiguous block of text meant simply as a marker. Then future researchers could, by analyzing the degree of degradation of the marker, figure out at what point the message was written. A statistical analysis of a population of bacteria could preesumably provide enough information to reassemble the message. Besides, it is possible in principle to write the same message fifty times on one of these things. The more times you write it, the more resilient it is to degradation, since a statistical analysis (on just one individual) will allow you to reassemble the message. Do these ideas provide even a glimmer of hope for this technique? What do you think?
The biggest problem is that non-coding dna is not selectively preserved.
Actually, genetic sequences which are irrelevant to the survival of the entity (as these sequences presumably are) spread through a population and thus are preserved. It is not as rapid as if it provided a benefit, but they spread nonetheless. In a 5th year AI class I actually did experiments with evolutionary computation, looking at genetic changes which had no affect on the fitness of the individuals. The purpose of the experiments was actually to explore whether variation in a population, even if it didn't have any effect of the fitness of the individuals, was a good thing (basically) -turns out it is. But I also learned that even without selection pressure, mutations/new genetic information, spreads (actually rather quickly) through a population.
This is neither a ridiculous nor trivial idea. There's a vast body of work in philosophy and brain science that tells us that it is so. While our intuition says it ain't so, history has shown that intuition isn't very good when it comes to the profoundest truths. "That's ridiculous!" was most probably the first response to the person who declared that the earth is not flat. Think also of the how our intuition fails us when it come to biological evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics.
You seem fairly convinced of your conclusion so I wonder whether you are even willing to consider the possibility that you are mistaken. I will write this post anyways, in the hope that you might be willing to consider my arguments and perhaps change your mind.
You mentioned a "vast body of work in philosophy and brain science". I must point out that the body of work in "brain science" (you probably should have said "cognitive sciences"), is utterly irrelevant -this is strictly a philosophical issue. Having said that, it is worth noting that by no means is there consensus within the domain of philosophy with respect to freewill. Allow me to briefly survey the issue (while ultimately irrelevant to the truth of the matter I think I should also point out that I have roughly a solid three semesters worth of philosophy courses in my degree and no less than an A+ in any of them)
Some people pose as a test for freewill the following: if someone, in retrospect, "could have done otherwise", then their action was done freely. This puts freewill at odds with determinism, since determinism clearly implies that a person could NOT have done otherwise. So we have a choice between determinism and freewill. Science tells us our brains are deterministic, and so we don't have freewill. End of story? Hardly. The above definition of freewill is rather naive and by no means agreed upon by all.
Freewill is defined by others as "the ability to choose", which is not, as you mentioned in an earlier post, just a rephrasing of freewill. "Choosing" is a cognitive act which is achieved by certain information processing agents. When an agent takes in sensory information, evaluates that information, and selects one of several behavioral options, it is said to be engaged in the process of choosing. It is in virtue of instantiating this process -which can be understood in entirely deterministic terms- that a creature is said to have possess freewill. In other words, as an information processing agent navigates through its world of various sensory percepts and so on, it chooses (deterministically) which options to take, based on its cognitive architecture and perhaps some grab bag of useful heuristics -this is freewill. I am describing a compatabilist position, which is a third position on the nature of freewill. A compatabilist believes in both determinism and freewill, because they define freewill in a more sensible way (I don't want to go into the specifics of the debate on how to properly define freewill -it is long and rather boring. To make it short, just rest assured that the first definition is metaphysically bankrupt as a concept, and the second is more in line with our evidence for proposing the concept of freewill in the first place).
Because it often comes up, I would like to briefly mention quantum mechanics -specifically quantum indeterminacy. Some people cite quantum indeterminacy as a solution to the problem of freewill -e.g. the universe is not determined after all, so is consistent with freewill! I happen to think this is a quite silly solution to the problem -as if random quantum events could somehow be responsible for freewill! Freewill is about choosing, about forging our own way forward, and randomness is no better for that than determinism. Also, this QM solution accepts the dichotomy discussed earlier -determinism versus freewill- which I have already shown is not the only way of looking at the problem -the compatabilist position offers a way out of this two sided way of looking at the problem.
It seems fairly self important to assume that they didn't understand the math behind the tiles. They generated them, didn't they? Islamic culture was well considered to be centuries ahead of Europe during that time period. They had access to some of the ancient Greek writings that Europe only rediscovered years later. My question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened? From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now.
Since depictions of the prophet are forbidden, Islamic art focuses of patterns and designs. It is therefore not "self important", as you describe it, to presume that perhaps their art was simply art, without mathematical justification.
In answer to the question of "what happened" to islamic culture, the answer is "religion happened". Anti-intellectualism swept their culture clean of vile rationality.
it does not give us information about the possiblity of life (as we know it, Jim) since these aren't the places we would find life in this solar system either.
Even if we are only looking at gas giants, at the very, very least, wouldn't it help us better understand the chemical makeup of neighbouring solar systems, and aid in the development of more accurate models of solar system formation (which will in turn help us better understand the probability of life elsewhere a la Drake equation)? Isn't it also quite possible that knowing the chemical makeup of gas giants might provide evidence for the existence and makeup of nearby celestial bodies (given some model of solar system formation)? I am by no means well informed in the domain of solar system formation, but it seems just obvious that there would be some statistical correlations between the chemical makeup of the gas giants and the chemical makeup of the smaller planets that share a common star -is this totally wrong? Might it not also be the case that the number and makeup of gas giants will provide evidence for the number and makeup of smaller planets (again, given some model of solar system formation)?
On the other hand, I don't know what the effective range is on these RFID chips. If it is more than 30 feet, then I'd definitely worry. If it's less than 3 feet, then by-hand scanning or pass-through-booth scanning are the only ways of effectively managing that. If it's between those two ranges, then... I wouldn't panic. Yet.
I don't think you've fully appreciated the potential for people to do nefarious things with technology of this sort. I'm not trying to be paranoid, but let's just say for the sake of argument that a government body was interested in keeping tracking of people who attended a protest (I know its far fetched but humour me). First, note that their method doesn't have to be 100% effective -those in charge will be happy with a system that identifies protestors with say, 60% efficacy. Second, note that it is not at all difficult for a government to figure out a way to get a scanner within three feet of somebody. Let's just say for example, passing a law that allows installation of readers on ATM machines, or on doorways in certain buildings. Sure, if you were worried about these privacy issues you could avoid ATMs and doorways, plus you would be safe 40% of the time (assuming the 60% efficacy number is realistic), but these are hefty prices to pay for the ability to attend protests. We should be glad that privacy advocates are kicking up a fuss about this technology -we have to keep on our toes to ensure that our laws and society allows this technology to come to fruition in such a way that our rights are not put in jeopardy. This is the concern -not what specific scenarios might or might not occur as a result of the technolgies induction into society, but what we have to do now to ensure as best we can that the door is not left open for bad things to occur at all. Given the nature of the technology we are discussing, concerns over privacy are well justified.
Fourth of all, all of this is theoretical so far since we haven't done it. Maybe our models are all wrong and this will in fact create a black hole capable of consuming everything around it and eventually the Earth and solar system. Probably not, but you can't really rule anything out completely.
This is not scientific thinking, and it shouldn't be granted any credence. You need to get some evidence to support your views. Your cautionary assertion is on par with the following: never write the letters "CKGJSHDFKLNJNSDFH" on a piece of paper -we don't know what would happen since it has never been done, and it might end life on earth (you can't rule it out completely). Both claims are just about equally substantiated.
Second, the only reason we have to believe in black holes is because of our scientific models, and now you are jumping up and down warning us that our models might be wrong? You would be standing on firmer philosophical ground by rejecting the notion that a black hole will be created at all (there you are just being a skeptic about theoretical entities). But your position as it stands is contradictory -you claim our models might be wrong and black holes might eat the planet, but yet you trust those theories in predicting the appearance of a black hole.
Am I the only one concerned that making mini-black holes might suck in the whole earth?
You're not the only one worrying, but trust me, there's no danger of this whatsoever. First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation. Second of all, they are so tiny that they will rarely (if ever) get close enough to swallow something else. Remember, on an atomic scale there is mostly space. And these things are not just small -they are so small its hard to fathom. They are formed by smashing together protons moving at 99.999999% the speed of light. A black hole (might) be formed, if, during the collision, the resultant density of the object is greater than the density required to form a black hole. The gravity will be no greater than the mass of the objects combining it, so you don't need to worry about it sucking things in. Let me jsut give you an example. A basketball could, theoretically, become a black hole, so long as you compressed its mass into a small enough area -but it would still have the gravitational pull of a basketball. And here, we are talking about turning protons into blackholes! In short, nothing to worry about chap!
I thought of this very system over three years ago, although it wasn't for the nefarious purpose of forcing school children to watch targetted ads. The idea actually was to set up a system whereby internet users could sit down, and watch ads for a few minutes to earn some money (sell your time). Obviously I take let's say 2% of what they get. I needed a way to check if the user was actually watching the ads, and the system sounds remarkably what MS guys were able to come up with. I didn't have the time to set up the site.
This situation to me highlights some of the annoying aspects of patents. First, if I had billions of dollars of cash lying around, I would have this patent (would've applied without a second thought). How then, is this system helping individual innovators rather than big corporations? Second, isn't it clear that the patent system isn't promoting R and D in this particular case?
On the plus side, I do believe a site has recently popped up that does what I wanted to do, and they probably have implemented a comparable system. Therefore, MS might lose this patent on the grounds of prior art, which is a plus.
Also, I wonder whether MS intends to charge for the webcams being provided, since they are required for the face tracking, but the schools might not (and probably don't) want them.
Why not offer a smaller amount for achieving an obtainable goal?
Actually NDP and libs were about neck and neck during the last election (within a few percentage points). No one really noticed because the big story was the conservatives winning. The NDPs greatest obstacle is getting the Canadian population to stop believing that the NDP will never win. They have alot of support. On top of that, because of our stupid voting system, there are ALOT of would-be NDP voters who are scared of the conservative party winning, and end up voting strategically in favour of libs. It is worth noting that all of our small useless parties are left leaning. It is also worth noting that our one big right leaning party was formed by combining two smaller right leaning parties. You can thank our voting system for this stupid states of affairs where the majority of Canadians are clearly and decisively left leaning, but we are ruled by a minority conservative government. Crappy.
I am a bit disappointed in the federal government now though..
I am more than a bit disappointed with this government. Besides hacking away at social programs, increasing taxes for the lowest bracket ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/01/06/taxes-tor
- Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society...
- I don't know all the facts o-n Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.
- I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage.
-
In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
- "I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians
I have nothing else to add except that I am saddened by the current leadership of my country .Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.