Empirically as in by measuring. We as in the form and matter that make up us. How as in "how do atoms move about in the void". Define as in making clear what specifically is meant and what is not meant.
The meaning of my questions are to show that there is no scientific way to do show the existence of emergence scientifically/empirically.
The term emergence is not a scientifically viable term and appears mostly to be a magical word used by those that have not read enough philosophy of science.
Turing completeness is already in the computer that the game of life is run on (nothing new arises), the game of life rules only hinder the potentiality for turing completeness less then other parts of the simulation.
Other then that, the very concept of Turing completeness is only an interpretation that is given to a physical system, one can interpret the atoms in a sandwich to be Turing complete if one wants to.
>"On the other hand, if you could just build an exact physical simulator, you could create a virtual fertilized ovum copying a real one atom by atom, then see how it divides and ends up creating a human brain. " This assumes among other things: 1. That every physical action/reaction in a human is calculatable 2. That such a simulation is not intractibly hard to calculate (protein folding comes to mind) 3. That a calculation, if it exists, is knowable. 4. That calculating a simulation is the same thing as building something in reality (simulating a digestive system does not actually mean that food gets digested)
n-body problems, navier stokes equations etc are not exactly easily calculatable, what makes you think there are no such things in a human? Not to mention trying to calculate quantum phenomena since we are talking of particle simulations.
"I think that reasoning must be subordinate to empiricism".
Thats fine. How do we empirically determine if two apples on a table are the result of a calculation or if they are simply breakfast?
"I reject the notion that the concepts in our heads have reality outside that system" That is not empirical, that is very anti-empirical. Since on your view that a concept is simply a calculation of a certain type any subjectivity that would arrive would be epiphenomenal since it would not be able to influence the calculation back.
We should reject epiphenomenalism because it is true that me writing about me having the experience of a red curtain in my visual field has something todo with me now seeing a red curtain. We should reject eliminativism since it is self refuting (it is simply the belief that there are no beliefs).
There have been a great many different coherent challenges to the idea that the mind is a computational in nature, among them are the ones I wrote. The idea results inescapably (really, as in there is no escape from it) in ether epiphenomenalism or eliminativism, even the epiphenomenal one results in eliminativism on such things as unity of mind, agency and original intentionality.
Here is another: 1. Physics is computational. 2. Syntax is not derivable from computation (via the argument from multiple realizability). 3. Syntax is therefore not computational. This has the implication that a piece of software does not have a set nature, the software is only what it is interpreted to be by a conscious agent that hold original intentionality.
There is no such thing as "a computation" in itself, something is only a computation of it is interpreted to be such. Two apples on a table could be the result of the computation 1+1, or they could simply be breakfast.
----
There have however not been any coherent defenses of the idea that the mind would be computational.
>"what else could it be that fits with modern science?"
The normal function of the matter of the brain plus the form of the brain of course.
Equating it to a certain kind of computation opens up the can of worms that contains the problems of epiphenomenalism, eliminativism, intentionality and multiple realizability among others.
Perhaps more than pop music or Hollywood blockbusters, even the top video games traditionally have been limited in their appeal to the specific regional culture that produced them. For example the well-known series Grand Theft Auto, with its scenes of glamorized urban American violence, has been tremendously popular in the United States but has largely failed to resonate in Asia and in many parts of Europe.
no shit. germany has anti jew organization? well il be damned. who would ever think tht of the germans.
the key point I was trying to make was to ask the question "will it be more or less of those organizations with or without the law". and I would like to get some stuff to back this up with.
also you have made no attempt to compare the usa with europe on this.
so. did you even read my post or just skim through it?
You also seam to have placed this in some sort of government conspiracy where the polititians do this so they get more power. I say that its the people that want this. you have offered no proof to your view. and you have actually not offered any proof that germany has many anti jew organizations eather. so be gone untill you can be of use to me. this is taking up my time and I would rather if you were usefull to me instead of just trying to convince yourself that you are right.
I have been reading through most of the comments posted to this article and come across some interesting things that I would like to talk about.
1. Dont you people read the link the article is pointing to before you post a reply? The story is about the Council of Europe, not the EU.
2. There has been many people holding up freedom of speach to the skies as an absolute, all or nothing thing, I would like them to put forth some kind of proof that doing this will not help, it will only make things worse. This is atleast what I understand their point to be.
3. I live in europe, in one of the countries that this effects, sweden allready has a law like this so I dont care too much for this new thing though. The impression that I get is that the people of europe wants to be protected from these sorts of things. Is it not true that vocal and secret racism and hatred to minorities happens more often and is more evident in the usa then in Europe? I dont havto put up with or respect these people. And I want it that way. If you have any evidence why this is a bad way to think about it please let me know.
No it wouldnt. The people in the forefront of the 3d industry are the people that are skilled at what they do. They want as a fast/transparant ui as possible, have you ever tried the ui of poweranimator or softimage?
Its the little gamer kids that make their mods for q3a that you are talking about.
We dont need them. They dont want this app anyways. they want their 3dsmax.
Then how do you explain the ui of every in house 3d tool in the industry? They have been designed with only one goal in mind. Workflow speed.
Its better to design the ui of an app you use all day to be as fast as possible and then not to care about the learning curve.
This is becouse the time it takes you to learn the app is made up for in a matter of days when you actually use the app.
You cannot claim that people must understand the app when its about 3d software. This is becouse they are in themselfs very hard apps to use. So the people using them havto be very tech friendly. They should not have any problem learning the ui nomatter how hard it is.
The people that complain about the ui eather havent spent enough time learning it or quite simply doesnt have any buisness learning it in the first place.
If you are just using a 3d app to play with and create some cool graphics you might aswell use poser or bryce.
Blender is a tool designed for fast workflow, to be used in a team environment within a company.
I had the same problem as the author of this article about the slowness.
My computer has a xp 1600+ processor, yet gedit for example took 16 seconds to start (time gedit, then close the window as fast as possible).
Some comments in the article suggested that he should change the hostname. It was possible that X didnt get it correctly, then the apps hadto wait for something to time out.
I saw that the hostname when I typed hostname in the terminal was green.rsn. But in the more standard hostname config files it was localhost.localdomain.
So I changed the hostname from green.rsn to localhost.localdomain
Problem solved. Gnome was now very fast.
So if anyone else has speed problems with Redhat 8.0 this might be worth looking into.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet he appears to know for sure there is such a thing as being frightened.
You might want to have a look at the downfall of atheistic communism, the rise of paganism in europe and the rise of christianity in asia.
Empirically as in by measuring.
We as in the form and matter that make up us.
How as in "how do atoms move about in the void".
Define as in making clear what specifically is meant and what is not meant.
The meaning of my questions are to show that there is no scientific way to do show the existence of emergence scientifically/empirically.
The term emergence is not a scientifically viable term and appears mostly to be a magical word used by those that have not read enough philosophy of science.
How do we empirically separate a message from a non message? A property of intelligence from one of non-intelligence?
Turing completeness is already in the computer that the game of life is run on (nothing new arises), the game of life rules only hinder the potentiality for turing completeness less then other parts of the simulation.
Other then that, the very concept of Turing completeness is only an interpretation that is given to a physical system, one can interpret the atoms in a sandwich to be Turing complete if one wants to.
>"On the other hand, if you could just build an exact physical simulator, you could create a virtual fertilized ovum copying a real one atom by atom, then see how it divides and ends up creating a human brain. "
This assumes among other things:
1. That every physical action/reaction in a human is calculatable
2. That such a simulation is not intractibly hard to calculate (protein folding comes to mind)
3. That a calculation, if it exists, is knowable.
4. That calculating a simulation is the same thing as building something in reality (simulating a digestive system does not actually mean that food gets digested)
n-body problems, navier stokes equations etc are not exactly easily calculatable, what makes you think there are no such things in a human? Not to mention trying to calculate quantum phenomena since we are talking of particle simulations.
How would we (empirically) come to the conclusion that these last two examples are emergent?
"I think that reasoning must be subordinate to empiricism".
Thats fine. How do we empirically determine if two apples on a table are the result of a calculation or if they are simply breakfast?
"I reject the notion that the concepts in our heads have reality outside that system"
That is not empirical, that is very anti-empirical. Since on your view that a concept is simply a calculation of a certain type any subjectivity that would arrive would be epiphenomenal since it would not be able to influence the calculation back.
We should reject epiphenomenalism because it is true that me writing about me having the experience of a red curtain in my visual field has something todo with me now seeing a red curtain. We should reject eliminativism since it is self refuting (it is simply the belief that there are no beliefs).
There have been a great many different coherent challenges to the idea that the mind is a computational in nature, among them are the ones I wrote. The idea results inescapably (really, as in there is no escape from it) in ether epiphenomenalism or eliminativism, even the epiphenomenal one results in eliminativism on such things as unity of mind, agency and original intentionality.
Here is another:
1. Physics is computational.
2. Syntax is not derivable from computation (via the argument from multiple realizability).
3. Syntax is therefore not computational.
This has the implication that a piece of software does not have a set nature, the software is only what it is interpreted to be by a conscious agent that hold original intentionality.
There is no such thing as "a computation" in itself, something is only a computation of it is interpreted to be such. Two apples on a table could be the result of the computation 1+1, or they could simply be breakfast.
----
There have however not been any coherent defenses of the idea that the mind would be computational.
What is an emergent property? Do these emergent properties have the ability of influencing back the properties that they emerged out of?
>"what else could it be that fits with modern science?"
The normal function of the matter of the brain plus the form of the brain of course.
Equating it to a certain kind of computation opens up the can of worms that contains the problems of epiphenomenalism, eliminativism, intentionality and multiple realizability among others.
You are wrong aswell:
Perhaps more than pop music or Hollywood blockbusters, even the top video games traditionally have been limited in their appeal to the specific regional culture that produced them. For example the well-known series Grand Theft Auto, with its scenes of glamorized urban American violence, has been tremendously popular in the United States but has largely failed to resonate in Asia and in many parts of Europe.
Grand Theft Auto was not produced in the USA, it was produced in Scotland.
r ies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_(se
Grand Theft Auto (GTA) is a computer and video game series created and primarily developed by Scottish developer Rockstar North
nintendo made money with the n64.
though its true that it was in second place to the playstation.
it didnt fail. (though I think it sucked)
as there were none, blix found none, so he was right all along. (unlike everyone else)
revolution is the project name for the next nintendo console.
like doplhin was the codce name for the gamecube
ultra64 for the nintendo64
nitro for the nintendo ds.
its a console just like the next one from sony and microsoft.
so please back up the "they are out" comment.
you might be interested to know that camecube is #2 in the world AND in the us.
the russians won the war, the brits only took the credit
Simply becouse people dont care about those events. And dont want to read about them on slashdot.
And there happens more opf those every day then can fit on slashdot in a day.
So if you want to read those. Start your own fire news site.
stating facts that are wrong to incite hatred is what you call expression?
well. thats one fucked up view of expression.
1+1 = 3? hm. teach that in math class and you wont have that job for very long. "but hey I was only expressing myself"
no shit. germany has anti jew organization? well il be damned. who would ever think tht of the germans.
the key point I was trying to make was to ask the question "will it be more or less of those organizations with or without the law". and I would like to get some stuff to back this up with.
also you have made no attempt to compare the usa with europe on this.
so. did you even read my post or just skim through it?
You also seam to have placed this in some sort of government conspiracy where the polititians do this so they get more power. I say that its the people that want this. you have offered no proof to your view. and you have actually not offered any proof that germany has many anti jew organizations eather. so be gone untill you can be of use to me. this is taking up my time and I would rather if you were usefull to me instead of just trying to convince yourself that you are right.
I have been reading through most of the comments posted to this article and come across some interesting things that I would like to talk about.
1. Dont you people read the link the article is pointing to before you post a reply? The story is about the Council of Europe, not the EU.
2. There has been many people holding up freedom of speach to the skies as an absolute, all or nothing thing, I would like them to put forth some kind of proof that doing this will not help, it will only make things worse. This is atleast what I understand their point to be.
3. I live in europe, in one of the countries that this effects, sweden allready has a law like this so I dont care too much for this new thing though. The impression that I get is that the people of europe wants to be protected from these sorts of things. Is it not true that vocal and secret racism and hatred to minorities happens more often and is more evident in the usa then in Europe? I dont havto put up with or respect these people. And I want it that way. If you have any evidence why this is a bad way to think about it please let me know.
No it wouldnt.
The people in the forefront of the 3d industry are the people that are skilled at what they do. They want as a fast/transparant ui as possible, have you ever tried the ui of poweranimator or softimage?
Its the little gamer kids that make their mods for q3a that you are talking about.
We dont need them. They dont want this app anyways. they want their 3dsmax.
Then how do you explain the ui of every in house 3d tool in the industry?
They have been designed with only one goal in mind. Workflow speed.
Its better to design the ui of an app you use all day to be as fast as possible and then not to care about the learning curve.
This is becouse the time it takes you to learn the app is made up for in a matter of days when you actually use the app.
You cannot claim that people must understand the app when its about 3d software. This is becouse they are in themselfs very hard apps to use. So the people using them havto be very tech friendly. They should not have any problem learning the ui nomatter how hard it is.
The people that complain about the ui eather havent spent enough time learning it or quite simply doesnt have any buisness learning it in the first place.
If you are just using a 3d app to play with and create some cool graphics you might aswell use poser or bryce.
Blender is a tool designed for fast workflow, to be used in a team environment within a company.
I had the same problem as the author of this article about the slowness.
My computer has a xp 1600+ processor, yet gedit for example took 16 seconds to start (time gedit, then close the window as fast as possible).
Some comments in the article suggested that he should change the hostname. It was possible that X didnt get it correctly, then the apps hadto wait for something to time out.
I saw that the hostname when I typed hostname in the terminal was green.rsn. But in the more standard hostname config files it was localhost.localdomain.
So I changed the hostname from green.rsn to localhost.localdomain
Problem solved. Gnome was now very fast.
So if anyone else has speed problems with Redhat 8.0 this might be worth looking into.
Blender has had mouse gestures for a very very long time.
Opera did not introduce this.
The eu is growing really fast. (many new and old states eager to join)
Much faster then the population in the usa is.