I have to agree, if you take the only intelligence we know of, human, and derive the obvious process that led to our developing intelligence, the senses play a major part in intelligence. This is why IMHO, that a robot could develop intelligence over just a computer.
Seriously, IMHO, AI, from the perspective of self-awareness, self-programming, won't be possible until we really begin to understand human intelligence. So far we are the only ones (somewhat) capable of self-awareness and self-programming, and so on.
Being an employee of the State of Georgia I would of heard this. Ah well there out sourcing us (IT) soon, so I'll have all the opportunity to be out doors.
You would also have to add in the cost of a launch license add in the cost to make it safe enough to launch, no way would 10,000 be enough. Of course thats in the US, not sure what it is for Europe. Maybe they don't care if people try to launch several small "missile" like rockets that can reach orbital velocity.
I did read your last paragraph;
I further contest the implication that science as we know it has been around thousands of years. The roots of modern science may have been laid by some of the early mathematicians and engineers in the classical age, but the observe, hypothesize, experiment, confirm model came to fruition at the beginning of the enlightenment.
You contested me to show that science as we know it has been around for thousands of years, I pointed out where it was, thats all. Yes you alluded to how early mathematicians and engineers laid the foundation, but I pressed that what they did was science as well, and only the methodology was different.
I contest your statement that science hasn't been threatened since its inception. I further contest the implication that science as we know it has been around thousands of years. The roots of modern science may have been laid by some of the early mathematicians and engineers in the classical age, but the observe, hypothesize, experiment, confirm model came to fruition at the beginning of the enlightenment.
By all means contest. Take a look at The History of Scienceand then there's Aristotle who's studies of logic were incorporated as recent as the 19th century. True Aristotelian science is outdated, but it played a major role in creation of modern science. You may only see science as "modern science" but it goes much further back than that. To just look at one point in time and deny everything else that lead up to it, and brought about modern science, is myopic and not the true pursuit of knowledge, rather trying to justify ones beliefs (ie. worldview).
(Conjecture) Science has been countering religious arguments for centuries. If you don't understand that look up Galileo. Where was the peaceful coexistence there? If there is an early correlation between scientists and monastic types it has drastically less to do with the religious teachings of the church versus the inadvertently fostered intellectual atmosphere of specific monastic orders.
(end conjecture)
Actually Galileo conflict with the church was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.
Here's a quote about Aristotle's philosophy approach that put things in perspective.
Today's philosophy tends to exclude empirical study of the natural world by means of the scientific method. In contrast, Aristotle's philosophical endeavors encompassed virtually all facets of intellectual inquiry.
You claimed enlightenment, I see it more as role entrenchment. Role entrenchment is when we accept our role completely and fail to recognize that we are acting. Blindly playing a role is not wisdom; it is dumb compliance. Most people blindly follow science claiming enlightenment. Yet so few appear to be enlightened.
Most of the/. people are intelligent, as are obviously you. I urge you to look beyond. The universe is much larger than us, the pursuit of knowledge is a wonderful thing, be it in religious context or scientific, the universe is big enough for both.
Because in the incredibly sad state of affairs that is the US educational and political system, science - and with it the future of our nation - is genuinely threatened by religious lunacy and the moronic beliefs and ravings of dysfunctional schizoid-delusional sociopaths. Science IS modernity. That's all there is to it. The only thing we have that cultures didn't have 500, or 1000, or 2000 years ago, is science - and scientifically-derrived knowledge. We HAD religion. Only science has fostered new insights into the nature of reality. And as a result of those insights, we now have the modern world and the wonders of technology - from dentistry to antibiotics to cheap clothing to the internet and cell phones. Science gave us EVERYTHING that makes us different from the middle-eastern tribesman and shepherds of the 1st Century.
huh? Threatened? Just because someone believes in something? Hell, the most famous scientists where religious. Up until the 20th century religion and science had always co-existed. Oddly, It's also a fact people tend to feel the way you do, ie. Threatened, when they feel their worldview is under attack, not because it's against science.
You also know that science had been around for thousands of years without being "threatened", right? Honestly reading your "rant" and your obvious closed mindedness scares me the most. If this is what science is coming down to, without objectivity, fear to question what we know, emotional outbursts, then ya science in the 21st century is in a lot of trouble.
Yes, I do understand the scientific methodology very well. True scientific methodology is based on more than repeatability it has to include objectivity. Then again any objective observer will notice that most people do not tend to make most important decisions based on fact but on emotions.
Here's an excellent article on Scientific BiasHow people, in this case scientists tend to skew their readings.
They (DARPA) Can't test for every outcome at once, but they could and most likely will get valuable information when they test for well defined attacks.
Okay, I might be missing something but consciousness is more than just the brain, it's the sum of the parts. I mean everything I do is firmly connected through sensory inputs. I could never 'think' of a car, or driving it, if I had never seen a car or felt it, or sensed gravity on my body through proprioceptive sensing from the rest of my body. I believe the continual rapid feedback that the senses provide give the 'sense' of consiousness.
This is simply derived by looking at the only sentient, and seemingly conscious being, us.
This is why I believe mimicking the brain is just one part, but it's not the whole thing, and why it's much more complicated than Kurzweil thinks.
In any company I've worked with, I've seen tech project put on hold, usually more about maintenance than the new projects.
An email server may not needed to be upgraded, but a new wireless VOIP solution that allows for reduced cost of maintenance and usage most likely would be pushed to the front. Any innovations that can reduce cost and either maintain or increase productivity would be a sure thing in a recession.
The reaction produces X-rays and a directed stream of charged particles. The X-rays are collected by a sort of multilayer onion-like solar panel that converts them to electricity, and the charged particles also get converted directly to electricity
Well yes and no, the Helium nuclei can be used to produce electricity directly, although with all of the natural alpha emitter's you would think someone would have made a prototype device to convert them (alpha particles ie. helium Nuclei)to electricity. But I do not know anything yet that can efficiently change the X-Ray radiation to electricity, it's just not easy to stop.
Donate to me, I'll gladly take it in the name of progressing OSS. Seriously though, I don't understand why people turn to masses to make up their minds for them. Is it because people want to do what everyone else is doing?
Anyone you choose to donate to will be helpful, Ko-Hai.
Still there has to be something with what James Bonner stated, that the mice showed mesothelioma when injected, but not when they breathed shows that there is more to whats happening and needs further study.
I just wouldn't be jumping the gun with how dangerous it is until further studies are done.
Here's the Journal entry and an additional article from NewScientist
stating, and I quote;
James Bonner at the North Carolina State University, Raleigh, US, will shortly publish one of the first such studies. He says the results suggest that nanotubes do not persist long enough to cause damage.
In his experiments, mice breathed air containing 40-micrometer-long multi-walled nanotubes. "Very little inflammatory or fibrogenic effect was observed," he says.
Donaldson notes that determining the true risks of nanotubes will involve measuring the ways in which people will be exposed to them, something studies on toxicity cannot judge.
There is little evidence about exposure so far, says Donaldson. "But the good news is that nanotubes are probably not very 'dirty'," he says. "They are quite highly charged and stick together, so they don't seem to get airborne easily."
So there's probably nothing to be concerned about. Just got to love the %^$#@# media, for putting a spin on things.
Sparkfun has a nice RFID reader for $35 and tags for $2.00. The only problem the RFID has a reading distance of 8 inches. A UHF system is in the thousands of $$.
It's still can be done, as long as you send plenty of neutrino's (ie. trillions) statistically we should detect a few of those. Now to detect enough neutrino's to see a modulated signal is another thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Look here for more info.
I have to agree, if you take the only intelligence we know of, human, and derive the obvious process that led to our developing intelligence, the senses play a major part in intelligence. This is why IMHO, that a robot could develop intelligence over just a computer.
Seriously, I believe someone's blowing the proverbial smoke up someone's often mentioned derrière.
Seriously, IMHO, AI, from the perspective of self-awareness, self-programming, won't be possible until we really begin to understand human intelligence. So far we are the only ones (somewhat) capable of self-awareness and self-programming, and so on.
Being an employee of the State of Georgia I would of heard this. Ah well there out sourcing us (IT) soon, so I'll have all the opportunity to be out doors.
Why would a PhD student solicit for information on a social website? Shouldn't you be doing the research yourself??
You would also have to add in the cost of a launch license add in the cost to make it safe enough to launch, no way would 10,000 be enough. Of course thats in the US, not sure what it is for Europe. Maybe they don't care if people try to launch several small "missile" like rockets that can reach orbital velocity.
You contested me to show that science as we know it has been around for thousands of years, I pointed out where it was, thats all. Yes you alluded to how early mathematicians and engineers laid the foundation, but I pressed that what they did was science as well, and only the methodology was different.
By all means contest. Take a look at The History of Scienceand then there's Aristotle who's studies of logic were incorporated as recent as the 19th century. True Aristotelian science is outdated, but it played a major role in creation of modern science. You may only see science as "modern science" but it goes much further back than that. To just look at one point in time and deny everything else that lead up to it, and brought about modern science, is myopic and not the true pursuit of knowledge, rather trying to justify ones beliefs (ie. worldview).
(Conjecture) Science has been countering religious arguments for centuries. If you don't understand that look up Galileo. Where was the peaceful coexistence there? If there is an early correlation between scientists and monastic types it has drastically less to do with the religious teachings of the church versus the inadvertently fostered intellectual atmosphere of specific monastic orders. (end conjecture)Actually Galileo conflict with the church was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.
Here's a quote about Aristotle's philosophy approach that put things in perspective.
Today's philosophy tends to exclude empirical study of the natural world by means of the scientific method. In contrast, Aristotle's philosophical endeavors encompassed virtually all facets of intellectual inquiry.You claimed enlightenment, I see it more as role entrenchment. Role entrenchment is when we accept our role completely and fail to recognize that we are acting. Blindly playing a role is not wisdom; it is dumb compliance. Most people blindly follow science claiming enlightenment. Yet so few appear to be enlightened.
Most of the /. people are intelligent, as are obviously you. I urge you to look beyond. The universe is much larger than us, the pursuit of knowledge is a wonderful thing, be it in religious context or scientific, the universe is big enough for both.
huh? Threatened? Just because someone believes in something? Hell, the most famous scientists where religious. Up until the 20th century religion and science had always co-existed. Oddly, It's also a fact people tend to feel the way you do, ie. Threatened, when they feel their worldview is under attack, not because it's against science.
You also know that science had been around for thousands of years without being "threatened", right? Honestly reading your "rant" and your obvious closed mindedness scares me the most. If this is what science is coming down to, without objectivity, fear to question what we know, emotional outbursts, then ya science in the 21st century is in a lot of trouble.
Here's an excellent article on Scientific BiasHow people, in this case scientists tend to skew their readings.
I agree, it makes a reader think that their research is biased.
$45 million isn't that much for a project like this, but it's about time!
They (DARPA) Can't test for every outcome at once, but they could and most likely will get valuable information when they test for well defined attacks.
This is simply derived by looking at the only sentient, and seemingly conscious being, us.
This is why I believe mimicking the brain is just one part, but it's not the whole thing, and why it's much more complicated than Kurzweil thinks.
But where's the Brain-Computer interface? Heck, I would even go for real-time voice recognition!
An email server may not needed to be upgraded, but a new wireless VOIP solution that allows for reduced cost of maintenance and usage most likely would be pushed to the front. Any innovations that can reduce cost and either maintain or increase productivity would be a sure thing in a recession.
Well yes and no, the Helium nuclei can be used to produce electricity directly, although with all of the natural alpha emitter's you would think someone would have made a prototype device to convert them (alpha particles ie. helium Nuclei)to electricity. But I do not know anything yet that can efficiently change the X-Ray radiation to electricity, it's just not easy to stop.
Donate to me, I'll gladly take it in the name of progressing OSS. Seriously though, I don't understand why people turn to masses to make up their minds for them. Is it because people want to do what everyone else is doing? Anyone you choose to donate to will be helpful, Ko-Hai.
I just wouldn't be jumping the gun with how dangerous it is until further studies are done.
Sparkfun has a nice RFID reader for $35 and tags for $2.00. The only problem the RFID has a reading distance of 8 inches. A UHF system is in the thousands of $$.
Actually a particle accelerator could be used to created a beam of neutrino's, as far back as 1978 there has been work on modulating neutrino's.
It's still can be done, as long as you send plenty of neutrino's (ie. trillions) statistically we should detect a few of those. Now to detect enough neutrino's to see a modulated signal is another thing.