The camels fell into Confederate hands at the beginning of the Civil War, then back to the Union Army in 1865. Most were sold at auction in 1866. A few escaped into the west Texas desert and are known to have survived until late in the nineteenth century.
PS: I'm really not doubting what you're saying, I'm just trying to find something which confirms it. Of course, that something may not exist on the web...
Armadillos are often used in the study of leprosy, since they are the only known non-human animal species that can contract the disease. They are particularly susceptible due to their unusually low body temperature, which is hospitable to the leprosy bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae).
The 9-banded armadillos also serve science through their unusual reproductive system, in which four identical quadruplets are born in each clutch of armadillos. Because they are always identical, the group of four armadillos provide good subjects for scientific, behavioral, or medical tests that need consistent biological and genetic makeup in the testees. This phenomenon of multiple identical birth, called polyembryony, only manifests in the genus dasypus, not all armadillos as is commonly believed.
I would say that the idea of an electronic consciousness is still totally unproven.
I didn't say it was proven, but you can't say either that it's false just because it hasn't been proven yet. That's what I meant, and it's not what the original poster seems he was saying.
I suppose they have to prove that the vehicle isn't being guided/helped remotely? That must be a non-trivial task...
By the way, I hope no camels die. (kidding, I know there are no camels on the US - but there are probably many other animals on that desert, I guess:P)
Layer != Transistor layer. I think the layers you're refering to are just layers for the construction of a single transistor layer. I could be wrong though, so don't mod me up unless you're sure:)
Thanks, that's exactly my opinion, but I don't want to go saying that before I really know why people think that. For all I know, maybe there is something pointing at quantum counsciousness. But I really wouldn't bet on it, I would be far more inclined for your theory... Frankly, I don't give a fly whether we're special or not. That doesn't change what we are, in my opinion! What do I care if I'm a deterministic being? I still have to make an effort to make things happen for me (or at least I feel I have to), and, above all, I feel conscious, that's all I need:)
PS: When quantum theory is explained, what will be the next explanation they'll try to give in order to feel special again?:) PS2: As I've said in another post, even if we're quantum-based, that doesn't mean we can't be reproduced by computational means... all it would imply is that we would need a quantum computer for that purpose!
Fortunately, someone more intelligent than you has already replied to your message, so I'll spare my keyboard. BTW, sorry about that spelling error (notice the singular form of error, as opposed to your plural) "programemrs".
So there is no difference. There programmers and non-programmers. Some non-programemrs don't program at all, others pretend they do. Programmers will quickly adapt to any operating system. One of those groups has a future, and the other one does not.
That doesn't mean we can't reproduce it, or does it? Not all computers are digital. And of course, there's also the possibility of mixing electronics with biological components...
"Neurons are alive" - that's just a matter of semantics, whether you like it or not:)
Yep, the brain is surely a huge computational device. But that doesn't mean we can't reproduce it electronically (or if not totally electronically, with the help of some biological parts). The human brain computational capacity is estimated to be at around 10^16 - 10^17 operations per second. One day we'll be there:)
I was also thinking about reading books by John Searle and another guy whose name I can't remember now. I'm really curious to see if there is really any good evidence pointing at quantum consciousness which is convincing enough for me to accept the possiblity (assuming I can understand the concepts, of course...).
I don't think that morally it is the same thing. Robbing a bank affects many more people, would that count in terms of morality? Even if it doesn't, most people would feel that robbing a bank is much worse... So I don't think that the set of people who would rob the 5$ is the same as the set of people who would rob the bank, even if they were assured that they wouldn't get caught.
Aha but we have yet no proof that the finite serious of neurones are what cause consciousness in humans.
At least we're sure that they are the biggest part of it. This is one of those proofs which will only appear if/when we produce a conscious human-like being, I guess...
there are even theories that consciousness may be quantum in nature
That wouldn't be a hurdle at all. OK, we might need "quantum light switches" but what's the problem?;) I know that wouldn't be according to the original post, but what he meant was obviously that we will never be able to produce artifical consciousness at all.
PS: If I (in my almost full ignorance of these matters) had to bet, I would say that quantum effects don't play a big part in the human brain. But I've already got some books in my queue about this:)
I didn't write the 30 years part without thinking at all. Read their sentence. They say they'll run the simulation for 3 years (read this post btw:)), and then they say that 30 years thing. From that sentence alone, one would interpret it as running the simulation for 30 years.
Now, if they're talking about running a big project for learning about society for 30 years, that sounds much better to me.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he said half a candy bar originally. But I think I made a mistake somewhere too :)
:P)
(of course I understood what you mean, I just felt like being pedantic
No, he said half a candy bar originally. But I think I made a mistake somewhere too :)
A quarter is 25 cents right? Or is the name quarter a false-friend?
You're saying his articles are worth 5 cents?
Yes, but it doesn't mean that we *CAN* reproduce it electronically.
I didn't say I was sure of that, I just said I believe it. If you knew how to read I wouldn't need to tell you this.
Are you implying that one can quickly generalize from a single special case?
You don't dissapoint me at all :)
I'm trying to find some references on this. Here's one:
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6528E/X6528E01.htm
In Italy, Spain, South Africa and Texas in the USA camels were also introduced as pack animals, but they soon disappeared.
So maybe they didn't dissapear completely? Another one:
http://www.lsjunction.com/facts/camels.htm
The camels fell into Confederate hands at the beginning of the Civil War, then back to the Union Army in 1865. Most were sold at auction in 1866. A few escaped into the west Texas desert and are known to have survived until late in the nineteenth century.
PS: I'm really not doubting what you're saying, I'm just trying to find something which confirms it. Of course, that something may not exist on the web...
Of course it is an unknown, it hasn't been proved either false nor right.
:)
However I do know that a neuron is more complex than a light switch.
Quantitatively, sure. Qualitatively, we'll see in the future
Wow, we don't have those animals here...
:)
From wikipedia:
Armadillos are often used in the study of leprosy, since they are the only known non-human animal species that can contract the disease. They are particularly susceptible due to their unusually low body temperature, which is hospitable to the leprosy bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae).
The 9-banded armadillos also serve science through their unusual reproductive system, in which four identical quadruplets are born in each clutch of armadillos. Because they are always identical, the group of four armadillos provide good subjects for scientific, behavioral, or medical tests that need consistent biological and genetic makeup in the testees. This phenomenon of multiple identical birth, called polyembryony, only manifests in the genus dasypus, not all armadillos as is commonly believed.
Great stuff!
I said finite, not infinite.
I would say that the idea of an electronic consciousness is still totally unproven.
I didn't say it was proven, but you can't say either that it's false just because it hasn't been proven yet. That's what I meant, and it's not what the original poster seems he was saying.
I suppose they have to prove that the vehicle isn't being guided/helped remotely? That must be a non-trivial task...
:P)
By the way, I hope no camels die. (kidding, I know there are no camels on the US - but there are probably many other animals on that desert, I guess
Layer != Transistor layer. I think the layers you're refering to are just layers for the construction of a single transistor layer. I could be wrong though, so don't mod me up unless you're sure :)
Thanks, that's exactly my opinion, but I don't want to go saying that before I really know why people think that. For all I know, maybe there is something pointing at quantum counsciousness. But I really wouldn't bet on it, I would be far more inclined for your theory... Frankly, I don't give a fly whether we're special or not. That doesn't change what we are, in my opinion! What do I care if I'm a deterministic being? I still have to make an effort to make things happen for me (or at least I feel I have to), and, above all, I feel conscious, that's all I need :)
:)
PS: When quantum theory is explained, what will be the next explanation they'll try to give in order to feel special again?
PS2: As I've said in another post, even if we're quantum-based, that doesn't mean we can't be reproduced by computational means... all it would imply is that we would need a quantum computer for that purpose!
Fortunately, someone more intelligent than you has already replied to your message, so I'll spare my keyboard. BTW, sorry about that spelling error (notice the singular form of error, as opposed to your plural) "programemrs".
a decent programmer can program for all systems?
:)
I didn't say that, or did I?
"non programmers don't program at all, other pretend they do." WTF?
I didn't say that either, you misquoted
One of the best "from-the-%s-dept" jokes I've ever seen, congrats timothy
can easily program for all of those systems.
So there is no difference. There programmers and non-programmers. Some non-programemrs don't program at all, others pretend they do. Programmers will quickly adapt to any operating system. One of those groups has a future, and the other one does not.
Funny mods don't give you karma. Err, your ID is so low I doubt you didn't know this already :)
Very unfortunately, though, it seems that even if 1000 people complain about the dupes, they won't stop doing it. Maybe they really don't care?
That doesn't mean we can't reproduce it, or does it? Not all computers are digital. And of course, there's also the possibility of mixing electronics with biological components...
:)
"Neurons are alive" - that's just a matter of semantics, whether you like it or not
Yep, the brain is surely a huge computational device. But that doesn't mean we can't reproduce it electronically (or if not totally electronically, with the help of some biological parts). The human brain computational capacity is estimated to be at around 10^16 - 10^17 operations per second. One day we'll be there :)
Thanks for the links :)
I was also thinking about reading books by John Searle and another guy whose name I can't remember now. I'm really curious to see if there is really any good evidence pointing at quantum consciousness which is convincing enough for me to accept the possiblity (assuming I can understand the concepts, of course...).
I don't think that morally it is the same thing. Robbing a bank affects many more people, would that count in terms of morality? Even if it doesn't, most people would feel that robbing a bank is much worse... So I don't think that the set of people who would rob the 5$ is the same as the set of people who would rob the bank, even if they were assured that they wouldn't get caught.
I don't know :) But I don't doubt it has happened...
Aha but we have yet no proof that the finite serious of neurones are what cause consciousness in humans.
;) I know that wouldn't be according to the original post, but what he meant was obviously that we will never be able to produce artifical consciousness at all.
:)
At least we're sure that they are the biggest part of it. This is one of those proofs which will only appear if/when we produce a conscious human-like being, I guess...
there are even theories that consciousness may be quantum in nature
That wouldn't be a hurdle at all. OK, we might need "quantum light switches" but what's the problem?
PS: If I (in my almost full ignorance of these matters) had to bet, I would say that quantum effects don't play a big part in the human brain. But I've already got some books in my queue about this
I didn't write the 30 years part without thinking at all. Read their sentence. They say they'll run the simulation for 3 years (read this post btw :)), and then they say that 30 years thing. From that sentence alone, one would interpret it as running the simulation for 30 years.
Now, if they're talking about running a big project for learning about society for 30 years, that sounds much better to me.