[quote] *Just being able to create a viable simulation will serve as both motivator and validation for an enormous amount of new understanding of neurological behavior, knowledge which can then be applied to organic humans. * if you ignore ethical considerations you now have a simulated living human brain that can be experimented on and monitored with an utterly unprecedented level of detail, and in ways that simply could not be realistically done to a brain that had physical substance. Such a tool would likely enable vast leaps in our understanding of how the human brain operates, and it's relationship with the mind. And you can bet that even if the more "enlightened" nations ban experimentation on simulated minds there will be plenty of places in the world where sufficiently unethical researchers will be able to do their work. * You now have a predictable model of the brain to experiment on that puts white mice to shame in terms of experimental consistency. You could make multiple copies of the brain's exact state at a given moment and then expose it to exactly the same stimuli while tinkering with it's internals to gain an level of insigt into their effects that would be exhaustively dificult via other means. (this of course assumes that consciousness can exist in a discretely encoded simulation and that it's not necessary to incorporate the quantum effects that saturate an organic brain - a very large assumption I should think) [/quote]
Could you give some specific examples of how we could do this?Its probably my lack of imagination, but I struggle to think of any that don't involve either/or:
a) a behavioural aspect - i.e. how does a change in the brain affect behaviour - which require a physical extension, a body, or at least some other way for the simulated brain to output to something (presumably if you're simulating a human brain then you would need to simulate an approximation of a human body through which the brain could express itself)
b) a psychological aspect - how does the change in the brain affect the emotional state of the mind it represents. This could be tested with a Turing test style text based interaction, but it requires that a personality be developed, which is something that takes years of societal interaction in biological humans (plus a body full of hormones and such like).
There hasn't been a direct democracy since Athens, or possibly the French revolution. A representative democracy is still a democracy. Even Switzerland only has referenda on large scale issues, day to day government is still conducted by representatives.
The voters elect people to represent their interests in government. These representatives are accountable via the means of regular elections, by which unpopular actions on their part will result in their not being re-elected.
This of course requires an informed, educated electorate. But the same is true of a direct democracy.
It seems fairly likely that were due a new outlook (I stop short of using the PS phrase) some time soon, since we have so far failed to merge gravity and atomic forces for the past century.
It seems quite likely that something fundamental needs changing to make them fit together (possibly including the definitions of the words themselves).
Well, Einstein was an instrumental part of the development of QM (famously he won his Nobel Prize for his quantum explanation of the photoelectric effect).
But even forgetting this, the relativity revolution marked a huge change in the philosophy of most scientists, going from the assumption that our everyday experiences about matter and mechanics are generally true to the assumption that these experiences are only true of things at our scale and that the rest of the world operate under utterly different conditions (i.e. we have no experience of things that are are very small, or very large, or very fast, and these things behave in a way that makes no sense to our experience).
Prior to Einstein there were people like Lorentz, but these folk were trying to force the evidence (that the SoL always = c) into old fashion theories. Einstein was the one who made the break and said that our old fashioned theories didn't fit (everyday experiences such as the addition of velocity, the constancy of time, simultaneity, etc.)
Similar things are true with QM. A complete reappraisal of how we thing the physical world works is necessary is one is to accept it. (Although it is a lot less philosophically acceptable than relativity to many people, myself included).
OK. Let's assume you are a manufacturing production worker. If I give you a bunch of metals, plastics, resins, etc. which cost $5,000 in total, and I give you a few weeks, can you create a car that you can sell for $10,000?
Let's assume that you are a writer. You can write a book, or an article or an essay or whatever - can you independently distribute it through a sales network in a way sufficient to generate a high revenue?
It is generally the involvement of capital infrastructure, organisation and expertise that allows the value of the end product to be more than the cost of the input labour and materials.
Yes, but not the causation. Isn't it quite likely that people who are pre-disposed to violence are also pre-disposed to heavy drinking ( or more generally pre-disposed to addictive and/or self-destructive behaviour )?
From a personal perspective, this post makes me sad. No offense at all to mangu, you are quite correct in what you've said, it is just that Einstein was really the last physicist to give a new theory that was explained both mathematically and metaphysically. He said what was happening and also why.
Ever since it has been maths only and no explanation as to what is actually happening.
I know why this must be the case, and Neils Bohr was right and my human brain's need for narrative and context is wrong, but I would like to understand the world I live in rather than just model it with numbers...
It couldn't happen. There is no civil case to make as there are no damages, and in order for the courts to get involved there would need to be a CPS prosecution which requires and arrest by the police.
Slashdot Mirror
[quote]
*Just being able to create a viable simulation will serve as both motivator and validation for an enormous amount of new understanding of neurological behavior, knowledge which can then be applied to organic humans.
* if you ignore ethical considerations you now have a simulated living human brain that can be experimented on and monitored with an utterly unprecedented level of detail, and in ways that simply could not be realistically done to a brain that had physical substance. Such a tool would likely enable vast leaps in our understanding of how the human brain operates, and it's relationship with the mind. And you can bet that even if the more "enlightened" nations ban experimentation on simulated minds there will be plenty of places in the world where sufficiently unethical researchers will be able to do their work.
* You now have a predictable model of the brain to experiment on that puts white mice to shame in terms of experimental consistency. You could make multiple copies of the brain's exact state at a given moment and then expose it to exactly the same stimuli while tinkering with it's internals to gain an level of insigt into their effects that would be exhaustively dificult via other means. (this of course assumes that consciousness can exist in a discretely encoded simulation and that it's not necessary to incorporate the quantum effects that saturate an organic brain - a very large assumption I should think)
[/quote]
Could you give some specific examples of how we could do this?Its probably my lack of imagination, but I struggle to think of any that don't involve either/or:
a) a behavioural aspect - i.e. how does a change in the brain affect behaviour - which require a physical extension, a body, or at least some other way for the simulated brain to output to something (presumably if you're simulating a human brain then you would need to simulate an approximation of a human body through which the brain could express itself)
b) a psychological aspect - how does the change in the brain affect the emotional state of the mind it represents. This could be tested with a Turing test style text based interaction, but it requires that a personality be developed, which is something that takes years of societal interaction in biological humans (plus a body full of hormones and such like).
Unless you're an entangled boson.
There hasn't been a direct democracy since Athens, or possibly the French revolution. A representative democracy is still a democracy. Even Switzerland only has referenda on large scale issues, day to day government is still conducted by representatives.
The voters elect people to represent their interests in government. These representatives are accountable via the means of regular elections, by which unpopular actions on their part will result in their not being re-elected.
This of course requires an informed, educated electorate. But the same is true of a direct democracy.
You're changing the subject from that of whether governments 'take' money to that of whether the taking of money is justified.
Is 'brazillian' a unit of measure?
Why should those be the only two options?
Very few governments claim that protecting citizens' freedom is their central role.
Although, don't identify the donkey, otherwise you'll violate UK press law in another way.
Citation needed.
A, B ( a sort of buzzing thing )
That sounds like the old "two wrongs make a right" argument.
Explaining why the opposition is wrong does not make you right.
It seems fairly likely that were due a new outlook (I stop short of using the PS phrase) some time soon, since we have so far failed to merge gravity and atomic forces for the past century.
It seems quite likely that something fundamental needs changing to make them fit together (possibly including the definitions of the words themselves).
Well, Einstein was an instrumental part of the development of QM (famously he won his Nobel Prize for his quantum explanation of the photoelectric effect).
But even forgetting this, the relativity revolution marked a huge change in the philosophy of most scientists, going from the assumption that our everyday experiences about matter and mechanics are generally true to the assumption that these experiences are only true of things at our scale and that the rest of the world operate under utterly different conditions (i.e. we have no experience of things that are are very small, or very large, or very fast, and these things behave in a way that makes no sense to our experience).
Prior to Einstein there were people like Lorentz, but these folk were trying to force the evidence (that the SoL always = c) into old fashion theories. Einstein was the one who made the break and said that our old fashioned theories didn't fit (everyday experiences such as the addition of velocity, the constancy of time, simultaneity, etc.)
Similar things are true with QM. A complete reappraisal of how we thing the physical world works is necessary is one is to accept it. (Although it is a lot less philosophically acceptable than relativity to many people, myself included).
OK. Let's assume you are a manufacturing production worker. If I give you a bunch of metals, plastics, resins, etc. which cost $5,000 in total, and I give you a few weeks, can you create a car that you can sell for $10,000?
Let's assume that you are a writer. You can write a book, or an article or an essay or whatever - can you independently distribute it through a sales network in a way sufficient to generate a high revenue?
It is generally the involvement of capital infrastructure, organisation and expertise that allows the value of the end product to be more than the cost of the input labour and materials.
Yes, but not the causation. Isn't it quite likely that people who are pre-disposed to violence are also pre-disposed to heavy drinking ( or more generally pre-disposed to addictive and/or self-destructive behaviour )?
Gilgamesh is not an English book.
Not all of it benefits society as a whole.
I'm British, and I'm not sure I benefit from having paid for the Iraq and Afghani wars, MPs expenses, EU subsidies, CAP, etc. etc....
How do you know that?
So, either accept something that's wrong or leave? They are your options?
Well done.
Our leaders (UK, USA, Europe, etc) respond to the electorate. Since 2008 the electorate's priorities have changed.
Have you been playing Fallout recently?
Although, such good use of a semi-colon. I do so admire the juxtaposition of punctuation and profanity.
From a personal perspective, this post makes me sad. No offense at all to mangu, you are quite correct in what you've said, it is just that Einstein was really the last physicist to give a new theory that was explained both mathematically and metaphysically. He said what was happening and also why.
Ever since it has been maths only and no explanation as to what is actually happening.
I know why this must be the case, and Neils Bohr was right and my human brain's need for narrative and context is wrong, but I would like to understand the world I live in rather than just model it with numbers...
It couldn't happen. There is no civil case to make as there are no damages, and in order for the courts to get involved there would need to be a CPS prosecution which requires and arrest by the police.
About 10 of those are to replace devices and computers I have replaced and thrown away. How many represent new devices and/or users?