The reasoning is that if they can believe that, then that lack of reasoning powers may project into other areas (which is fine if you're not looking for intelligent discussion in a relationship by the way).
I'm not saying I would mind especially (although it would certainly be a factor), but everyone unconciously takes things like this into account when choosing friends and partners surely?
If an article is supposedly too 'trivial' to be put in, then the way it will 'suffer' is from not being linked from others pages inside Wikipedia. Might as well leave it in - it won't harm the rest of the encyclopedia.
All very good, but in the true spirit of the idea, anyone should be able to submit data. The site could rank data by 'authoritiveness', but in many cases it's better to have slightly questionable data than none at all (especially if it matches up with other questionable data).
For example, in the energy usage section I might want to create metadata to see which energy type has grown the quickest etc.
A couple of years back, I would have said something just like you did. I too, believe in many absolutes (including the quality of music/art, which is more controversial).
However, there are a few ways what he said could be interpreted, and it seems to me that by saying "it's relative", he's merely stating the obvious - that the implementation is relative to the "set-in-stone" standard.
If you still doubt this, then explain why he said "What we can say is that this one appears to be more compliant than before". That itself shows that he is saying there are 'degrees of quality' towards the standard, and that some implementations are closer (better) than others.
General science question: If wavelengths of light are too large to find out the colour of atom or molecule (or 100 molecules), then why can't you use much finer wavelengths to measure, and scale the results up to the range we can see?
It's simple, we do what we were meant to do - compose music & create art, socialize more, and generally enjoy life. Eventually pursue exploration of the universe. Sounds good to me.
I bet these hyper-interlligent robots wouldn't have the creative insight into scientific investigation that people would have anyway.
Even technically this can be emulated with digital software. In fact better than emulated, software can show a lot more information on the screen, and better presented than a vinyl record could show.
Granted though, the whole CD (or whatever) would need be scanned in first. But it wouldn't surprise me if software exists like this for MP3/WAV and the like.
It's as simple this - digital subsumes vinyl. In other words it can do anything vinyl can and more. If people prefer the sound of the hi-tech vinyl system over the hi-tech digital system, that could be because the vinyl system introduces noise, and deeper low-end than the digital system.
To solve this, either:
a: Adjust the equalizers on your digital system to match the 'warmth' of the analog system b: Digitally introduce noise into the digital version c:...or simply record the analog version, and then play it in the digital player.
As someone else pointed out earlier, music is usually digital in the first place anyway before it is put onto analog or rerecorded digitally.
I would suggest being taught a programming language such as D, at least in addition. Although the transition from C/C++ to D can be painful, D contains many similarities with C/C++ such as speed, except it's much tidier and has many of the advantages of Java syntax whilst maintaining the power of C/C++ if necessary (optional pointers, optional manual garbage collection etc.).
Sooner or later, languages are going to evolve, and surely it's only a matter of time before something D-like is going to be used anyway. Might as well make the switch sooner rather than later.
While that may be true to a point, I can only say from experience that I'd never go back to 100 watt equiv after getting used to our current 400 watt equiv. The difference is *very* noticable.
Before, it was like a cave.
I could still imagine 1600 watt equiv being even better still.
I thought you meant M$ windows for a moment there:)
Yes, we have large windows. Okay let's say:
1: It isn't winter, AND 2: The sun happens to shine directly in the direction of window AND 3: There isn't cloud in the sky
Then we would still only get a fraction of the light one would get from outside instead. Yes, it sucks. And yes, it would be ultra cool to have 2000 watt bulbs indoors. I say this only half in jest.
Heh, that's nothing:) I have an 85 watt (equivalent to 400 watt incandescent) full spectrum (6500K colour) in my living room. Everyone in my house (including my parents) agrees that it's far better than anything before.
Still want it MUCH brighter tho. Having it as bright indoors as it usually is outdoors is the way forwards.
But it's because qualia aren't open to scientific enquiry that I believe there's something more to our existence than what mere materialism/reductionism/determinism would imply.
The fact that (I believe) a robot could never experience 'red' in the way we do, or never feel pain, or anything else seems to be a very real possibility.
Thanks for your response on this. And it's interesting you asked similar question to myself before accepting Buddhism more.
I find it fascinating that the unpleasant response I usually associate with bodily pain could theoretically be not what it appears. Perhaps if someone knew they were going to die in a given time (say 30 minutes), then they wouln't care about pain at all they were suffering in the meantime.
I wonder though if this is because we ignore the sensations entirely (pain or physical sensation), or if it's what you said - that we still feel extreme body sensations, but that they are not unpleasant, and therefore not 'painful'.
Again, I ask; do Buddhists gain pleasure from listening to great music or playing something like Go? It's a very competitive game, but the mental challenge is very subtle, deep and rewarding.
I would hope that they do gain (possibly massive amounts of) pleasure from such things, but that the lack of such is only 'neutral' to them, rather than a negative displeasure.
Likewise, how do Buddhists view the idealism and building of utopias? Would they relish in helping building an amazing place for everyone to live in? Let's assume wars had ended, and energy was freely available.
I hope Buddhists can still take pleasure in such things, and have goals, and that only the negative feelings of not reaching those goals - they manage to control somehow.
Your response to this may determine whether I look further into Buddhism:)
Surely desire has little to do with it. If you were trapped in a dark box with no means of escape for the rest of eternity, I can guarantee you would be unhappy, and desire to get out.
Likewise, if you were in pain, you would desire to not be in pain. That's because pain is negative happiness, and its removal will at least make things neutral.
If you desired to listen to an incredible piece of music, or see an incredible piece of art, then the happiness you would get from such a pursuit would mostly likely be related to the quality of the aforementioned piece.
If I enjoy playing Go, Chess or writing up a fantastic piece of code, then again surely that's because such challenges have an inner structure, logic and that's in some way intrinsically fun or beautiful?
Do strict Buddhists enjoy listening to music at all?
Well, sorry, but I'll stop believing in some kind of dualism (one-way or two way communication between body and soul, wherever that may reside), when qualia and self-awareness can be scientically explained in a way that sounds even half convincing:)
A citation from Wikipedia is better than no citation at all. If you already have a citation from a 'primary' source (if ever such a thing could be said), then it really doesn't hurt to ALSO have a citation from Wikipedia as a secondary citation. In fact, it's good practise to have at least one citation for any given fact anyway, especially if the 'fact' may be questionable.
That may be true for the micro-level, but for everyday matters, quantum mechanics barely plays a part (yes quantum mechanics could make a cat appear out of thin air suddenly, but the chance of this happening is 1/(10^(10^(10^(10^10))) etc.).
Therefore, for all practical purposes truth does exist, and we'll never know it exactly, but we can use probabilistic weightings for any evidence we come across.
Oh and furthermore, quantum mechanics has absolutely *zero* hold over truth involving math, or possibly truth involving philosophical issues (example, existence of qualia or beauty). It's only science/physics where it may have a say.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing ln(-1) is unknown too...
The reasoning is that if they can believe that, then that lack of reasoning powers may project into other areas (which is fine if you're not looking for intelligent discussion in a relationship by the way).
I'm not saying I would mind especially (although it would certainly be a factor), but everyone unconciously takes things like this into account when choosing friends and partners surely?
Just out of interest, which do you hold to be more likely...
a: Astrology is true.
b: Christianity is false.
If an article is supposedly too 'trivial' to be put in, then the way it will 'suffer' is from not being linked from others pages inside Wikipedia. Might as well leave it in - it won't harm the rest of the encyclopedia.
Yes, but assume infinite bandwidth.
I guess what I'm asking is; are all pixels calculated completely independently?
You say "almost perfectly". Is there some non-linear aspect to ray-tracing? How would a hypothetical 1,000,000,000 core cope over a half-billion core?
All very good, but in the true spirit of the idea, anyone should be able to submit data. The site could rank data by 'authoritiveness', but in many cases it's better to have slightly questionable data than none at all (especially if it matches up with other questionable data).
For example, in the energy usage section I might want to create metadata to see which energy type has grown the quickest etc.
A couple of years back, I would have said something just like you did. I too, believe in many absolutes (including the quality of music/art, which is more controversial).
However, there are a few ways what he said could be interpreted, and it seems to me that by saying "it's relative", he's merely stating the obvious - that the implementation is relative to the "set-in-stone" standard.
If you still doubt this, then explain why he said "What we can say is that this one appears to be more compliant than before". That itself shows that he is saying there are 'degrees of quality' towards the standard, and that some implementations are closer (better) than others.
General science question: If wavelengths of light are too large to find out the colour of atom or molecule (or 100 molecules), then why can't you use much finer wavelengths to measure, and scale the results up to the range we can see?
It's simple, we do what we were meant to do - compose music & create art, socialize more, and generally enjoy life. Eventually pursue exploration of the universe. Sounds good to me.
I bet these hyper-interlligent robots wouldn't have the creative insight into scientific investigation that people would have anyway.
If artists get such a raw deal, then why don't they go independent then?
It'd be great if Amazon allowed *everyone* including joe public to submit music for people to start buying.
Interview with Dr. Cui, here.
Even technically this can be emulated with digital software. In fact better than emulated, software can show a lot more information on the screen, and better presented than a vinyl record could show.
Granted though, the whole CD (or whatever) would need be scanned in first. But it wouldn't surprise me if software exists like this for MP3/WAV and the like.
It's as simple this - digital subsumes vinyl. In other words it can do anything vinyl can and more. If people prefer the sound of the hi-tech vinyl system over the hi-tech digital system, that could be because the vinyl system introduces noise, and deeper low-end than the digital system.
...or simply record the analog version, and then play it in the digital player.
To solve this, either:
a: Adjust the equalizers on your digital system to match the 'warmth' of the analog system
b: Digitally introduce noise into the digital version
c:
As someone else pointed out earlier, music is usually digital in the first place anyway before it is put onto analog or rerecorded digitally.
I would suggest being taught a programming language such as D, at least in addition. Although the transition from C/C++ to D can be painful, D contains many similarities with C/C++ such as speed, except it's much tidier and has many of the advantages of Java syntax whilst maintaining the power of C/C++ if necessary (optional pointers, optional manual garbage collection etc.).
Sooner or later, languages are going to evolve, and surely it's only a matter of time before something D-like is going to be used anyway. Might as well make the switch sooner rather than later.
While that may be true to a point, I can only say from experience that I'd never go back to 100 watt equiv after getting used to our current 400 watt equiv. The difference is *very* noticable. Before, it was like a cave. I could still imagine 1600 watt equiv being even better still.
I thought you meant M$ windows for a moment there :)
Yes, we have large windows. Okay let's say:
1: It isn't winter, AND
2: The sun happens to shine directly in the direction of window AND
3: There isn't cloud in the sky
Then we would still only get a fraction of the light one would get from outside instead. Yes, it sucks. And yes, it would be ultra cool to have 2000 watt bulbs indoors. I say this only half in jest.
Heh, that's nothing :) I have an 85 watt (equivalent to 400 watt incandescent) full spectrum (6500K colour) in my living room. Everyone in my house (including my parents) agrees that it's far better than anything before.
Still want it MUCH brighter tho. Having it as bright indoors as it usually is outdoors is the way forwards.
But it's because qualia aren't open to scientific enquiry that I believe there's something more to our existence than what mere materialism/reductionism/determinism would imply.
The fact that (I believe) a robot could never experience 'red' in the way we do, or never feel pain, or anything else seems to be a very real possibility.
Thanks for your response on this. And it's interesting you asked similar question to myself before accepting Buddhism more.
:)
I find it fascinating that the unpleasant response I usually associate with bodily pain could theoretically be not what it appears. Perhaps if someone knew they were going to die in a given time (say 30 minutes), then they wouln't care about pain at all they were suffering in the meantime.
I wonder though if this is because we ignore the sensations entirely (pain or physical sensation), or if it's what you said - that we still feel extreme body sensations, but that they are not unpleasant, and therefore not 'painful'.
Again, I ask; do Buddhists gain pleasure from listening to great music or playing something like Go? It's a very competitive game, but the mental challenge is very subtle, deep and rewarding.
I would hope that they do gain (possibly massive amounts of) pleasure from such things, but that the lack of such is only 'neutral' to them, rather than a negative displeasure.
Likewise, how do Buddhists view the idealism and building of utopias? Would they relish in helping building an amazing place for everyone to live in? Let's assume wars had ended, and energy was freely available.
I hope Buddhists can still take pleasure in such things, and have goals, and that only the negative feelings of not reaching those goals - they manage to control somehow.
Your response to this may determine whether I look further into Buddhism
Surely desire has little to do with it. If you were trapped in a dark box with no means of escape for the rest of eternity, I can guarantee you would be unhappy, and desire to get out.
Likewise, if you were in pain, you would desire to not be in pain. That's because pain is negative happiness, and its removal will at least make things neutral.
If you desired to listen to an incredible piece of music, or see an incredible piece of art, then the happiness you would get from such a pursuit would mostly likely be related to the quality of the aforementioned piece.
If I enjoy playing Go, Chess or writing up a fantastic piece of code, then again surely that's because such challenges have an inner structure, logic and that's in some way intrinsically fun or beautiful?
Do strict Buddhists enjoy listening to music at all?
Well, sorry, but I'll stop believing in some kind of dualism (one-way or two way communication between body and soul, wherever that may reside), when qualia and self-awareness can be scientically explained in a way that sounds even half convincing :)
A citation from Wikipedia is better than no citation at all. If you already have a citation from a 'primary' source (if ever such a thing could be said), then it really doesn't hurt to ALSO have a citation from Wikipedia as a secondary citation. In fact, it's good practise to have at least one citation for any given fact anyway, especially if the 'fact' may be questionable.
Yes, just like there'd be opportunity for all the glass-makers if everyone's windows were smashed in the country. :P
That may be true for the micro-level, but for everyday matters, quantum mechanics barely plays a part (yes quantum mechanics could make a cat appear out of thin air suddenly, but the chance of this happening is 1/(10^(10^(10^(10^10))) etc.).
Therefore, for all practical purposes truth does exist, and we'll never know it exactly, but we can use probabilistic weightings for any evidence we come across.
Oh and furthermore, quantum mechanics has absolutely *zero* hold over truth involving math, or possibly truth involving philosophical issues (example, existence of qualia or beauty). It's only science/physics where it may have a say.