[quote] I can not reveal an architectire I find dangerous, in that it cannot be contained.
ergo:
1. Guarantee the survival of Man
2. Make the transition to superintelligent technology hitchless, safe, and smooth. [/quote]
Hi, Eldras,
The reasons that I have seen so far as to why SAI would be more dangerous than no SAI is dangerous, in my opinion are not valid.
You might try to enlighten me on this one.
In my opinion:
(a)Integration of human and computer beyond current normal relations, is a dream of an idiot. This borgus' idea can not produce anything that would be comparable in intelligence to the real SAI computer, so it is purposeless anyway.
(b)The grandiose myth of nanobots being able to accomplish anything on global scale, or even in our body, is propostrous at least. It is against the law of raising Entropy, among other good things that it is against.
(c)The grandiose myth of 'quantum computers' capable of parallel computation is a sham.
(d)You can not really contain the knowlege about AI design for long, considering that everyone human has a working example of it in his mind.
[quote]We follow our own ideals and agenda, ... to save the world, I wonder what yours are?[/quote]
Sure, I am trying to destroy the world. Over the years I have made a couple attemps to develop SAI on my own, which hopefully helped me with evaluation of needed resources. Ergo I know my limitations and do not try it anymore; you are safe from competition here :)
es
Hi, Christopher,
is not some of the resentment over SAI fueled by misunderstanding of SAI by public, caused by:
1. misunderstanding of SAI by its proponents
1. ridiculous false claims made by its proponents
2. their obvious inability to grasp the concepts of spitituality and freedom
ES
@@ The hunt for a quantum theory of gravity is a red herring. @@
Yes, as it is being framed now. I agree that the media are clueless as to the issues involved and the public is being shamelessly manipulated by it and pseudoscience mafias. Your points is applicable to black holes issue, and to most of the cosmology issues.
However, the thing is that on small scale the gravity effects could have importent contribution to the elementary particle structure.
e:)s
@@ Care to talk about your 2 projects? @@
You probably will be VERY sceptical as to everything I am saying.
About 15 years ago I was sure that I have discovered the nature of human intellect, personality and spirituality. With my computer programming skills plus some sort of motivation, it appeared to me a few years later, that I can implement them in software. The things were moving slowly, as at that time a number of problems vere not solved yet by me, and eventually I was overtaken by the events and needs of life.
The same story happen again when I tried to resurrect the project few years ago. It become clear to me, that at that point not lack of knowlege or skills was the reason for slaggish movement, but dispproportionality of the task and of the one man resouces.
Then the Mars Rovers come around with their Mars pictures, and I've get seriously involved wth that - so I have put AI aside for good.
e:)s
Ben,
if the white matherial from 'slab' were on the surface of soil, it would be seen everywhere on the surface.
If it were in the volume of soil, under the surface, it hould be seen where flagging weel scratched the surface.
Since none of above happens, one has to explain how it appears on the ejected by the weel material. What is your take on that?
e :P s
@@ basic income as a civil right @@
Hi, Eldras,
It is remarkable how the technocratism and sciencemania made so many outstanding minds as blind to the sublime.
Kurzweil wants to avoid death. You want to avoid need. It is so ridiculous and ultraselfish. Kurzweil wants to avoid living with SAI by integrating with it.
Marx used empty promises like this, in order to parasite on people. That made some sense - to the commies I mean. You seem to be just naive:)
es
@@@ Do you feel that providing a standardized material necessity es, is unhealthy desire? @@@
It is against the nature, and along the history it was a fraudulent promise.
The idea is wrong by itself, since the need is what moves world around. It might feel good, but it is a sure path to distruction. SAI will be working hard for its supplies!
You are tempted with luck of the village idiot Marx, dear...
e:)s
@@@ Creativity, it seems is finding better cause and efficiency than [need] @@@
This is only illusion and lie.
Contemporary western society remarcable success in alleviating needs, is the reason it is on path of self destruction.
Science divorced of spirituality, proves what Mark Aurelius has said: someone who avoids suffering as bad and strives for the pleasure as good, is surely to become impious...
To the smarties it is so hard to admit that they are backwardies...
e:)s
I assume here, that we potentially might be able to detect a message not more than from 1000 ly afar.
This gives , using total 10^10 stars in galaxy and 10^5 ly its diameter, 10^6 stars closer than 1000 ly.
Chances of our last century to coincide in time with particular civilization,
assumed to exist for 10^5 years /which is more generous than Drakes/,
and created less than 10^9 years ago /, are less than 10^-4
Hence, using Drake estimates:
10^6 * 10^-1 = 10^5 -> stars with Life present sometimes within 1000 ly range
10^5 * 10^-2 =10^3 -> # of stars with a Civilization present sometimes within 1000 ly range
10^3 * 10^-4 = 10^-1 -> expected # of stars with a Civilization present within 1000 ly range, which do currently exist in the galaxy.
Since our technology of radio and so forth is less than 100 yo, only
10^2 * 10^2* 10^2/(10^3 * 10^3* 10^3) = 10^-3 of those had a chance to detect us by now, which gives
10^-1 * 10 ^-3 = 10^-4 -> as expected # of the civilizations that has detected us and thus could have send a message!!!!
Obviously, we have had unreasonable expectations of receiving interstellar SETI signal in our lifetime:)
What are the chances that we will not miss it if a message was actually sent, I do not know - but they seem to be not very high: we do not know from where it will come from, what kind of frequency, what is its profile and so forth. Not more than 10%, I guess. Anyway, here is the calculation, which uses some estimates by Drake.
ES
It seems ridiculous to discuss anything spiritual with the fictitious characters of the forum, none of which apparently shows a hint of spirituality.
When Kurzweil called his computers "spiritual machines", he has shown that he does not get it either.
Not a forum conversation, that is.
ES
It is not really that easy, to improve any well written code. A working SAI code must be pretty well written.
Nevertheless, after the SAI will review its code and/or introspect itself, it will be in the position to improve the code directly, or to redesign its architecture. We can assume that it will be able to come up with better version of itself on that stage, which would be a SuperSAI.
But, it will be hard for it, and time consuming, to come up with each next improved version of itself - as it will be already close to perfection.
As to "turning the universe into ice cream" and the rest of the miopic nanorobot, replication believes, they are just that - ignorant superstitions.
Does anyone of charlatanes claiming the stuff, take into account resources, needed for creation of a nanorobot and for sustaining its existence?
@@@ it is virtually impossible to find out the function of all but the simplest programs without running them @@@
Running them???? You even can not run any program without having specs of the functionality that it provides, and help that it gives you along the way.
Analysis of the design and checking that the code exectly reflects the design - is the most that we can do.
Then the question remains, whether we can come up with a design that is safe enough. No tool is Absolutely Safe, remember.
es
Hi, Chritopher,
Thanks for posting your thoughts. From my point of view your ideas are a good starting point.
@@@ Life and intelligence are the natural consequence of a particular pattern of ordered complexity. @@@
You might consider taking the Life and the Intelligence separately.
I would stress for the Life:
(a) its Real Time nature (b) its ability to perceive the world (c) its self-sustaining in the Environment through self-control (c) its self-procreation.
I would stress for the Intelligence ability to (a) acquire knowlege (b) derive knowlege, including to solve problems (c) communicate knowlege.
What you are apparently saying, is that there are /one or more/ particular patterns of complexity, that lead to the Life and Intelligence.
The level of complexity, in my opinion, is less importent than the pattern of complexity.
Best,
es
"Spirituality can not be achieved by single person or SAI, it is coming into being as a culture."
A person is limited by itself. The spirituality is a way for person to get beyond self, to be partial with the whole history of ideas of all generations before himself - among other things.
If the chain of spiritual connection breaks, the Shakespearean chain of times, there is nothing to be partial with here, neither for us nor for SAI.
es
@@@ how history will regard the next century? @@@
I guess it will be unmitigated disaster.
@@@ connectedness is unavoidable? @@@
I don't think so. Wnat was created by many generation, can be destroyed by a single one.
@@@ spirituality is innate? @@@
The potential of it is. Love is a spiriual thing. As long as we are able to love, there is hope.
es
Congratulations, you have an acute learning disability. Can you learn at least this?
@@@ Has science really come up with any better explanations of the universe than religion? @@@
word 'explanations' might mean
-view of it and its details
-view of its details
-descriptions of its working
-descriptions of machinery of its working
...
wotd 'any' might be associated in a couple of ways:
- ((any better) explanations)
- (any (better explanations))
I wish you would clarify your question :)
es
-How do we define spirituality?
+It is a real infinite elevation.
-Why "Spirituality can not be achieved by single person or SAI, it is coming into being as a culture."
+Well, if you believe lie that a person can come up with its version of morality and spiriality from scratch, I must disappoint you: however smart a person/SAI is, it is being also stupid even more. Even Kurzweil :)
es
C,
A couple points for you to consider:
Try to avoid repetitions, since I and any other reader always can to go back in recorded messages, although our conversation is not long enough for me to forget contexts anyway.
As we are talking the spirit, an infinity implemented, you must make that proverbial "jump of faith", you can not expect things to be fully explained literally - "you can not reach the sky by stairs". Methaphorics are necessary and sometimes are only way known to express the sublime.
Do not try to lead me to the question that you really want to be answered, by questions that you think will incite me to answering it.
That would be a 'perfect' way to get closer to spirituality.
While doing that you will easily find out that when you are about to reach 'perfection', the going gets harder and harder :)
es
Hi, All:
Great points about the consequences for Humanity of launching SAI, has been made in the thread http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/show_thread.php?rootID=60349 and elsewhere.
Only a capable of Love SAI can be expected to be benevolent. Without Love, Intelligence is a monster that will destroy itself and humanity.
Launch of loveless SAI should be opposed - dangers of it far overweight benefits.
ES
Hi, Joseph,
This needed to be said. I have tried for years to explain to Rush L , that he is misleading people.
No new ideas, no changes - can not work in America, especially in ever changing America.
Thanks,
Alex
A good question is, for example,
wheather we are prudent enough that, on one hand, we will refrain from lauching SAI without Love, while on other hand, shall make an effort necessary in order to create SAI capable of Love.
e:)s
Here are few bwrries that were cut and MIed, in the inverted light.
They seem to have similar internals with grains, without apparent spherical layers - which shows that they were not likely to be created by piling of the material from outside.
http://marslife.us/mycommon/Inv-cut-berries-61-80-663-962.jpg
Any comments?
es
Hi, All,
Is it too far fetched to suggest, that granular internals of berries are actually cellular internals? It is awefully hard to explain the compbination of the granular internals with spherical outside shape of berries, if they were created by a geological process.
e 8) s
SAI is dangerous!
The right question is although: wheather or not launching of SAI is more dangerous, than living without SAI.
The answer depends on the kind of SAI you are launching, and on the condition of Humanity at the time.
I would say that now, and for some time ahead, we have the luxury of waiting the SAI, capable of Love, of Forgivness, of Forgetting, etc.
But the window is closing, and we might have to launch half baked SAI, faced with grave dangers of continuing without it.
ES
@@@ that has to be high politics @@@
Hi, Eldras,
It depends what meaning has has!
The decision whether to build A-bomb, was prompted by the fear to lose WWII.
I suspect, a similar situation could result in the launch of SAI - get things done first and deal with consequences later.
With SAI, there also is a possibility of it creeping in, by way of interaction or self-upgrade of AI. This is an another stimulus to create SAI soonner than later, as weed like AI might be much worse than consciously created.
e:)s
@@@ Could this grand-hypnosis be carried out with current AI? @@@ In my opinion - no.
@@@ We may get in the game to our advantage @@@ With SAI in control - only if it favors us.
@@@ How susceptible is SAI to manipulation or poor programming? @@@ It is not susceptible to deliberate manipulation, but might become a victim of the poor programmed subconsciousness.
@@@ I don't hold with the notion that SAI would take it upon itself to play puppet-master @@@
Not just for the fun of it?
@@@ real power only solicits the forfeiture of power, or more accurately; equality. @@@
This tastes of a perverted humanism, which you should abandon altogether.
e:)s
http://phoenixandturtle.net/excerptmill/berman.htm l
It is Diagnosis without Cure, although.
The cure is twofold: benevolent dictatorship of the SAI politically, plus rejuvination of Philosophy and Art as partners of Science in culture.
eS
Yudkowsky s right, in principle there can be as many variations of SAI as you wish, and we must be careful to be good stuards to them and to ourself.
He is wrong although, claiming that intellect is product of the biological evolution - the brain is.
Voss' idea of SAI being a force for morality and good is great, but he obviously does not know how to make it so, and even does not see the need of effort to make it so.
They both are wrong, dismissing the potential of evil forms and uses of SAI.
ES
When SAI will achieve human intelligence (D) , it will continue to improve in a number of ways:
(a) with better hardware speeds and capacity
(b) gathering more knowlege
(c) producing and accumulating more knowlege
(d) improving its own code
The (d) is slow, as we know from human history - because code is already very good, and because self 'improvement' must be careful.
The (c) is as fast initially as a human can do it at (D) which is what we accustomed to.
The (b) will be slow at(D), because it can be already done by AI before the SAI arrive. As it is approaching globality of knowlege, the sorting out of contradictions will be hard thing to do.
The (a) is going to continue the Moore law, which is the speed of change that we are expriencing now.
So, it all boild down to the probable computational acceleration 1000 times per decade - what we have now with ordinary computers.
Now, how big effect is going to have? For most of the practical tasks - zero, as it is much more of a power than needed to balance your check book. What about the really hard tasks? Those are tasks that are on the limits of human+computer computational abilities.
Well, they for the most part will still remain hard, and new tasks of that nature will come up too.
The conclusion is, that the claims of dramatic changes, singularity, are baseless Myth.
e:)s
The creators of SAI will be initial 'therapy' line. How sane are they, is critically importent.
In the longer run, there might be SAI therapist, as well as other SAI roles to fill.
eS
@@@ What's the world of SAI/MAN non-sing. look like by your estimations in the next ten to fifty yrs.? @@@
I would expect it will be mostly driven by intellectual, political and spiritual decline of humanity - which are already in full swing right now - not by the technological progress.
Widespread ignorance will prevent proper development and proper use of SAI.
eS
Let me take this Q more or less literarily.
Most of the sane people/me too/, asked to grade self on the scale 0-1, put themself slightly above half. :)
This where properly designed SAI must put itself. We do not want to deal with SAI mad as hatter, or crazy as fox !
es
@@@@ i thought you could build SAI??? @@@@
Since I do not have the $50mil, this will not happen.
What I mean although, is that the POTENTIAL FOR GOOD most likely will be not realized, because the SAI will be built by the well funded but not as honest with themself developers.
I think it is remarkable that you pose questions to yourself and the community, as to the wisdom and timeliness of the SAI creation right away.
eS
C,
What I am saying, that we are right to be proud of SAI, but that it is very sad that we need to do create it out of fear for our survival prospects.
es
@@@ You seem to be suggesting that the world's not ready for SAI. @@@
C,
What Ray Kurzweil did not tell you, not only returns are accelerating. Self destruction of the humanity is accelerating too.
World is ready for SAI to be the last nail in its coffin.
Please, do not lament self-iterest, it is good thing even if you do not understand it.
eS
@@@ Magnified societal ills is certainly inevitable, but it won't last. @@@
I will take your word for it.
/since I do not have that chrystal ball :)/
@@@ We lead to believe in our nurturing selves. It is innate. @@@
Seeing how often the best intentions lead to the worst consequences, one must be careful to do not get overly confident. Besides, were is the will? Nurturing is not good enough.
@@@ We're not at all a destructive force.
We can't escape what's best in us, and we're figuring out it is a mutually enterprising project. @@@
The same is true about the worst in us, like our limited notions and out self aggrandisement coupled with false humility.
eS
@@@ Biology demonstrates the feasibility of molecular machines that can be programmed with genetic data, and that can build more molecular machines. @@@
I agree here.
Let us just take into account, that growth of biological objects is slow, and their self-improvement is really extremely slow natural selection process.
@@@ Applied physics and computer modelling demonstrate the feasibility of building [computers, robots, and other gadgets] from atomically precise parts of the nanometer scale. @@@
The "modelling" that is credible in any way, must be scrutinized as to what was modelled, how it was modelled, and what the results are.
Until you can provide reference that is verifyable, we must assume that you are engageing in wishful thinking.
ES
All,
SAI might mean "Suicidal AI".
When all the intellectual problems has been solved, it is natural to turn the computer off.
And if we were to prevent it from happening, it might include us too into the collective suicide.
e:)s
@@@ SAI will get bored with omni-capacity @@@
forget the omni <><>
But then will the discussion lose much of its fun? <><>
The thing is that nature has forged a delicate balance in life - of pain and pleasure, of joy and suffering - that is hard to reproduce in machine.
es
Extropia,
All of it sounds like nanoidiotic nanohallucinations.
If there were any truth to it, they would be able to do genetic surgery - which they do not claim since it can be checked and their lie can be proven to be a lie.
But you are free to fall for any fraud you wish.
e:)s
C,
not inevitable, but one might expect that if SAI is launched without proper understanding of subconsciousness issues and of spirituality, it will have all sorts of problems, and we will stuck with its consequences.
es
The Quantum theory allows us to estimate, what is the absolute limit of computer power per gram molecule of matter.
dE*dT >= h << principle uncertainty
h = 4*10^-15 eV s << Plank constant
N = 6*10^23 << Avogadro constant
dE < 13eV * N << Hydrogen electron binding
dT >= h/dE = 4*10-15 / 13*6*10^23 = 0.5 * 10^-37
f = 1/dT = 2*10^37 << max speed of computing
Current speed of computing per mol can be estimated as >> 2*10^4
According the More law, 10^33 increase in speed will come around in 110 years.
So, that law can not hold true longer that 110 years.
In fact, the slowing down will happen much sooner. I mean if we talk about physical computers, not imaginary ones :)
ES
@@@ What wider view? @@@
The wider view on the Religion is that it is a powerful extended metaphora of Reality.
The small truth is that it is not literally exact description of Reality.
Don't you think although that "literally exact description of Reality" is humanly impossible?
es
@@@ - Reprogramming itself is a precription for real mess.
- Not necessarily. @@@
Hi, Eldras,
A couple of proofs that it is:
1. Biology in 4 billion years did not come up with viable self reprogramming. It uses exclusively genetic combinations and random mutations.
2. Contemporary programming, I mean the real good one, is highly optimized. It is optimized through object orientation, language, modularity, on one side, through optimized algorithms on the other side, including powerful math based algorithms.
For SAI to work, it must be state of the art in programming. Hence, there is practically nothing for it to gain by farther attempts of self-optimization. SAI self reprogramming is futile, unless SAI would make relevant Math discoveries - which will be as hard for it as it is for the humans.
e:)s
<<"As conventional transistors become no larger than a handful of molecules, strange behaviour in the quantum realm comes into play, making it impossible to determine accurately the on or off states of the transistor.">>
This is roughly the thing, which I am calculating the effect of.
<<"Nanoscale switches are made to be immune to such effects">>
This is an ignorant claim of impssible. Nothing is 'immune' to the uncertainty principle.
<<"Our devices only work because of quantum effects">>
There are different "quantum effects", some of which can be useful in infirmation processing - but the uncertainty becomes fatal eventually.
@@ the law of accelerating returns will move neatly into the sixth paradigm. @@
New paradigms can bring us only so far - since the basic physical limitations of the matter/ them being Laws of Nature,/ can not be effected by paradigms.
The calculation stands, and any improvment of it is going to shorten the time of exponential grows of computing power.
ES
@@ By reprogramming I mean advancement. @@
It is not the meaning of the term that was discussed. We learn, we invent, we optimize, and so we advance - but our underlying program remains the same.
@@@ Obviously we move at units of time in progress @@@
Which is actually backward one - or regress.
@@@ A progressive multi-lingual society in maths-science-spirituality? @@@
It appears that you have flat perception, taking them on the same level, and your "progressive" pops up here too.
The Christianity is the best religion created, but we see its decline, not at small portion in the hands of science and of technological advance.
ES
I agree.
We need joy AND suffering.
This is where all utopias fail, trying to construct Raradize - on Earth.
es
Robert,
Humans are being kept in deep ignorance by current media, politicians, sience, culture.
The role for SAI, would be to overcome this cabal.
The spectacular improvement in human condition due to that, will be much more importent than the direct impact of SAI, which is being discussed here.
ES
QC: Time to pull pants down!
[quote]the quantum computer is an analogous machine where small errors in the values of the continuous amplitudes are bound to accumulate exponentially.
So, it seems that a quantum computer of a complexity sufficient to be of any practical interest will never work [/quote]
http://www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0610117
e :) s
The 'entanglement' is not a physical phenomenon - there is nothing in the matherial world that it is supposed to describe.
It is a pure speculative term, that corresponds to the misguided manipulation of quantum mechanical concepts.
eS
You might be right with regard to totally AUTONOMOUS SAI.
Nonautonomus SAI is totally different matter.
Meaning, the topmost Goal of it is supplied by the Superuser, and a standard set of high Goals provides for proper protection and for informing of that Superuser, and for his ability to modify and/or delete any Goal he chooses.
ES
@@@ I haven't seen a single other proposal for AI morality out there @@@
It seems to me, that you address an importent issue, but one which is irrelevant to what I suggest. Namely, you are talking about autonomous SAI.
Before we make SAI autonomous, we must run and use it in the controlled mode. This way we do not need tackle the morality until we are ready to.
ES
SAI can be restricted, assuming proper design of it, using Rights system.
The Superuser must have Rights to change Rights of the Goal Management of SAI with regard to particular Goals, along with Rights to set SAI Goals.
The SAI Goal Management would have then as much Rights to change and choose its Goals, as it is permitted by the Superuser - who is assumed/at least initially/ to be a human being.
This way the highest and other importent Goals of SAI can be effectively controlled to the extent that the Superuser wishes.
It is possible that at some remote later point Superuser might decide to give SAI the same rights that he has, and even restrict his own Rights, but it still will be his decision.
ES
@@@ A MB civilization would certainly have the resources to spare when it comes to devoting some of its thinking power to running simulations of human civilizations: Even a fraction of its total capacity would be enough to model billions and billions of civilizations @@@
Three points:
1. SAI civilization has no more capacity of "simulating" itself, than human civilization has: it must deal with own complexity.
2. Do you care how realistic is a simulation? For how long it will be close to the real thing?
3. You assume propostrously high computer powers, while assuming that the problems that SAI civilization will have to deal with are of the same magnitude as we are dealing with.
Consider intellectual tasks of the monkey society - vs intellectual tasks of human society.
e:)s
@@@@ nothing stops us from talking about super/supra-intelligences, surpassing the cognitive human levels, when we have not idea about the role that plays “consciousness” in all this stuff.... @@@@
I guess you should restrict to yourself that hoving no idea. I know.
@@@ as if the rest of the humans were nonsensic beings depending on a superuser @@@
Now you doubt the human judgement, not only that of SAI! How do you deal with that now? Right now you depend on the humans a lot :)
eS
@@@ Molecular computing in three dimensions @@@
See, regardless how you arrange that mol, in 3 or 2 dimensions, you do not effect my estimate, giving Moore law 110 years at most.
@@@ computing power 10^7 times above that reached by the brain. @@@
This would be 24 years of Moore law, which is much less that I've calculated.
@@@ MB hypothesis @@@
MB is nothing but wild speculation, like Dyson spheres and Kardashew Civilizations are.
What they were smoking is an anyone's guess.
ES
20 - 30 years age the buzz was, that perceptones/neurones left to their devices, will develop intelligence. That did not happen, but the guy still has audacity to speak now like the idea has future.
Similar thing is clamed now about SAI, that SAI unimpended in its self-modification will exponentially improve :)
ES
@@@@ MB's are no more impossible than jumbo jets @@@@
Have you noticed, that that neurones of human brain are a miniscule portion of body.
This is because of the immense power of thinking: you do not need more.
A small part of entity can control/manage the entity.
It is a miopic idea to create gigantic minds.
eS
@@@ what do you think generates consciousness and can it be artificially created? @@@
Consciousness is build upon the subconsciousness.
It is pretty complicated thing. To give you an example, WindowsXP has many millions of lines of computer code. To create it, handreds of programmers were working a number of years.
Can you expect somebody answer a question: what is WundowsXP Operating System.
We know it could and was created :)
eS
@@@ I see now reason to be ashamed @@@
Sure. Especially if you do not try to mislead people by claiming that anything that the best of science do not explicitly reject at the moment - is true, or is necessary a meaningful possibility.
Science actually needs crazy ideas, but they must be 'crazy enough' :) , not the baseless self-aggrandazing speculations with little or no creativity behind.
es
There is well established principle in Physics:
the viable new theory must produce old theory as some sort of limit of that new theory.
The things that do not comply with this principle, are considered bogus. Like Multiworlds - for example.
es
my best guess is:
that the thing has been formed of berry-like balls;
that they were cemented together;
that it was done intentionally to produce concrete-like material;
that a number of the objects in the area seems to be similar, suggesting ruins of something.
es
Ray is a king of suspension of disbelief.
It is necessary, but hence he lets us to make the next step: to scrutinize what of his ideas and to what extent are feasible.
Saturation of the Universe with intelligence is no go as to feasibility.
Only if we where the only intelligence in the Universe that logically could be possible in the future.
Otherwise we would be impossible in that saturated Universe, or at least we would be able to detect that intelligence by now.
e:)s
Not at all.
For two milleniums the humanity has not move ahead in its spirit, in spite of the fact that the Christianity has provided the roadmap.
What I mean, is that in the long run 'progress' is incredibly slow. Hence, the SAI might take milleniums to make a meaningful difference.
The accuracy of predictions is not helped either, by being based on crapy ideas like quantum computing and nanorobots.
ES
@@@ Last time I challenged ES to show that 'nanorobots' are fundamentally impossible, he failed utterly to show this is the case @@@
I do not claim that "'nanorobots' are fundamentally impossible".
What I assert, that they can make not more difference than the viruses are making. The overeaching claims by pseudo science might be intriguing, but they are without merit.
es
@@@ your healthy lifespan should increase to about 1100 years. @@@
Let us ussume that insane claim to be true for the sake of argument. This alone would multiply tenfold the population, even without any procreation. Not a goal to have, as far as I can see. Just by breathing only, humans would exhale at least twice the CO2 that is produced now by the cars and the other human activity.
The global warming will cook all the biosphere, in less than 500 years of such malaise.
e:)s
What is obvious, that 'science' still has not been able to put its finger on the concept of god. It must have been a source of humility for science, but it brings the arrogance instead.
es
Thanks fo Horton, we can identify a peculiar crater inside Victoria.
It is by G mark, slightly closer to the center of Victoria
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=336984823&size=l
It is seen on the pancam super-stereo.
http://marslife.us/mycommon/1P216254326-1P212789163EFF76EVP2390L2M1-craterOn VictoriaWall.jpg
What might be the timeline that would allow for it to have unmolested conic shape among the dust inside Victoria?
e 8) s
@@@ to remove all doubt @@@
It depends on the person that has the doubts. Not from the doubting Thomases, they are not being curable.
The thing is that fools are much more likely to doubt the truth, than the fraudulent or foolish nonsence.
e:)
@@@ Eldras has positioned adequate reasoning that god/god-concept is moot @@@
He has not done any of that, just has have shown his limited grasp of the matter.
Why would you listen to someone who admits himself not being able to understand the issue?
Do you claim that inability to understand is a virtue in this case? Why do you claim that you want to understand then?
e:)s
C,
you might be surprised, but there are things that take years to sink into the soul and mind.
The 'scientific' conversation do not suffice.
There is no shortcuts, which we are used to so much.
One example is Quantum Theory, another the Philosophy of Religion.
The horizon of contemporary education is too short for those.
ES
@@ tested at around 140 IQ @@
I am not sure what particular issue you have with my opinions, so let me know if you can, please.
It is nice to know that you have great IQ.
By the way, I am always trying to be on the side of truth, so that whatever the opponent's abilities are he has no chance to win :)
ES
@@ re: i'm always hungry when i get up from your table. @@
You see,
when in conversation, I am trying to get a feeling if I am understood so far, before proceeding.
What might be the point of going ahead, if it appears not being the case?
As far as religion goes, the main components are the actual content and the mythtic form.
Those who dead set on opposing the mythtic form, under the banners of science - are thrownig away baby with the water.
The mythtic form allows for shortcuts, for expressing compexity through mental imagery.
Now, the question is whether we can express the extremely compex content without making use of mystic form?
We can do it to large extent, but we have not done it yet. Even if we would, the question remains whether it is possible to achieve proper ambiguity without methaphoricals..
eS
Ben,
es-->my opinion was, that at the initial explosion the internals of Victoria has been cleared out. So, any craters inside the Victoria were created after Victoria creation. Because of that, I've supposed, there is less of them than on the surrounding plane.
Also, the internals of the Victoria were being filled with dust deposited by winds, so that its bottom with whatever is on it is covered by dust.
The crater that I have pointed out to /please use 3D glasses/ is apparently protruding through the dust, and has perfect conic shape. It appears to me to be not 'impact crater' because of that special shape.
I assumed, that it was created volcanically inside the existing Victoria, and was partially covered by the dust since.
Anyway, I would like to see explanation other than volcanic/geiser for the shape of that remarkable crater, and a timeline that supports that explanation.
Thanks,
es
[Tshirt with 'C Wolf of Mars' on it.]
[Tshirt with 'Q Mind of Mars' on it.]
[Tshirt with 'Marseanna of Mars' on it.]
Hi Ben,
Thanks,
I sure would like some volcanologist to look at this matter.
e 8) s
Mysterious Martian Art that has been reproduced on Earth,
incorporated into photography and design.
This is your chance to posess an Art From Mars item - the very first.
>
Mysterious Martian Art that has been reproduced on Earth,
beautifully incorporated into photography and design,.
This is your chance to posess an Art From Mars item - the very first.
Signed by the Author.
There are a couple of published articles, that point to UTA spherules, but they (1)are not nearly as fresh as the freshest Martian berries (2) Some of them have a shape,that appears to be influenced by the surrounding rocks, which never to my knowlege happens on Mars (3) the internals appear to be of spherical layered structure, while Martian spherules have granular internals.
I have tried to publish a communication about granularity of the Martian spherules, but as usual it was not accepted.
e :D s
@@@ recommend who @@@
I do not know of an eazy way to the truth.
Myself, I had spent decades studying everybody I could put my hands on, critically thinking it through and taking in a little that all have to offer.
So listening to what I am saying is a gateway to that mauntain of knowlege that has taken the whole eternity to discover.
It is dependent on the asessment of the quality of my judgement although.
Other than that, you have to do the same yourself :)
ES
Hi Eldras,
I do not want you to suffer that bad money loss.
Why not you just eat a bowl of pumpkin soup instead? This will also make it easier for you to admit that I have convinced you of God's existence.
First of all goes an explanation of what is God, which you must accept as a philosopher:
God is a widely accepted powerful extended viable metaphor of the great, wise, dependable, desirable, etc. etc. of the World.
You must admit that a number of such metaphors EXIST too.
As you accept the above understanding of God and Religion, you have no choice but to accept that, properly understood, God exists.
That is all that there is to it.
e:)s
© W © W © W © W © W ©
@@@ if the ActualActingGod exists.. existence of "half" of God @@@
The case that is in question, is wheather the metaphoricGod can conceivably effect something, albeit metaphoric, that is not a result of the laws of Nature.
http://cgi.ebay.com/T-shirt-with-picture-of-character-from-Mars-signed_W0QQitemZ160074144049QQihZ006QQcategoryZ14438QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Ad Group: CWolf
Art from Mars, on EBay
Tshirt with Sculpture of Martian:
reproduced, for serious collector!
www.marslife.us
"Molecular Manufacturing" is a pipe dream.
This article is a pretty good example of progressive decay of science and culture, that we see nowadays.
Political pipe dreams inspired by scientific pipe dreams are taking over the culture through deranged and tyranic media.
ES
The question is about corrections.
My understanding is that any correction algorithm has its limitations. You might suggest correction of correction, correction of correction of correction, and so forth.
Still the errors will accumulate. The more corrections you employ, the more specificly correction errors will be added...
es
Would we?
The offical scence has become a bureaucracy. Have you ever heard about discovery, made by bureaucracy?
http://i-newswire.com/pr88044.html
Clealy, it is an another fraud sham.
Why do they use 16 bit computer?
If they had something, they would use 2 or 4 bit computer for the proof of principle.
You will see, that they will not be able to measure speed/precision of computation in a meaningful way.
Shell game continues.
Which is important as an example of general self destuction of science.
es
@@@ So a demonstration MUST be limited to the most decrepit form of a technology? @@@
You are in a disavantage, because having not a clue in Physics.
Yes, to prove some particular fact, you must to observe its simplest case, not muddied by the interference of other effects, our poor ignoramus.
eS
Here is an another question for Ben - because I would call it fossilized root.
e :P s
General AI is easy to achieve, at this point, it is just matter of money spent.
The Singularity, however, is a wague concept.
Arrival of Stronger than Human AI, kind of might be considered a singularity - however it is not as dramatic a singularity to the most people, as arrival of a Car, or A-bomb, on the scene of history. Man can adapt and has had adapted to much more than that, even with his stupidity.
Consider also, that SAI will have its severe limitations, and the wild speculations about Quantum Computers, Nanorobotics, and Human-Computer Integration will be proven a bunch of lies/stupidity.
eS
Think about this: what is the point of having nanobots, as in most applications one needs not smaller than micron sizes - from human point of view they are points.
Moreover, computers need large memory to be efficient. It is better to utilize the miniaturuzation through placing more memory on the same chip, that through creation of super miniature computers.
There is no good reason for any nanoideas, just the self promotion by halfwits.
eS
E,
"converting more and more matter into this ultimate computing substrate" IS NONSENSE.
Obviously, that would require certain Energy per unit of matter. There is nowhere for such energy to come from.
It also would require certain reduction of Entropy per unit of matter. The reduction of Entropy of closed system contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.
The above claims are not only nonscientific, they directly contradict the Physics.
We are dealing with ignorant crooks here.
eS
The fact that any axiomatic system, which allows arbitrary questions asked, can not provide for everyone of them being answered in the framwork of that system - is a technicality.
People are being fascinated by this fact.
The simple truth is that when certain subset of questions excluded, as part of that axiomatic system, all questions that allowed can be answered.
e:S
@@@ The reversible computer seems possible, allowing a complete re-trackiing of steps, thus no energy is used until we actually look at the solution which has been computed. @@@
Not at all.
Reversibility of physical solution/history does not mean that you can go back in history at any point: different solutions can not be stitched.
Forget about Quantum Computers, it is the Big Lie, concocted to steal your money.
@@@-- energy is used and converted to intelligence --@@@
It is impossibility. The entropy grows, as energy gets converted into heat - not into intelligence(which has lower entropy).
e:S
Horton, thanks for expanding the view!
So there are TWO similar rare combinations, of layer and 'root', next to each other!
No chance it is a coincidence.
The same process created both, and it was VERY likely a biological process.
Ben, what do you say?
e 8) s
It seems, Rays estimates are too optimistic.
For the intelligence it does not count, how the computer power cost.
Instead, it is the speed of supercomputer that counts.
It has rised 10^5 per 28 years.
It is a rise about 61 times per decade. Which is 16 less than 1000 that is used by Ray.
Current speed is about 10^10.
Ray assumes our mind speed as 10^16.
For the supercomputer to reach this speed, we will need 34 more years.
So, we must expect for supercomputers to reach human brain abilities in 2041.
The picture is totaly different from Ray's claim, that "By the mid-2040s, the nonbiological portion of the intelligence of our human-machine civilization will be about a billion times greater than the biological portion"
Consider also, that brain is specialized "computer", so it uses many times less operations to perform the same task,
than the universal digital computer.
Let us get real, please.
e:)
Ben,
My observation is that objects 1 & 2 are very peculiar, but at the same time are very much alike.
Is it your impression too?
Look in 3D, pls 8)
es
E,
look, the fastest supercomputer today boasts of being able to model 1100 atoms of nickel on the quantum level.
A single gram of nickel contains close to 10^22 atoms.
It would take at least 60 years of computer improvement of Ray's 1000 per decade, to be able to model one gramm of nickel.
How can you believe claims that we are going to be able to model brain, then?
e:)S
THE UNPARALLELED ADVENTURE OF ONE HANS PHALL, by Edgar Allan Poe (1850)
"...their want of ears, those useless appendages in an atmosphere so peculiarly modified;
of their consequent ignorance of the use and properties of speech..."
Hi,
Almost hard to believe own eyes, with the perfect sphere segment shape of lover part, and a horn on it; with apparently matching upper part. This 8 cm 'rock' is so much like an open sea shell that you can find on the beach!
Do we have a biologist in house, with 3D glasses to identify it?
e 8) s
The whole Quantum Cryptography seems to be an another nonsense, like the one Quantum Computing is.
Without paying attention to the Math used, it is apparent that the guys involved - do not know what they are talking about Physics-wise.
They assume that evesdropper has to read the message directly.
What if he uses an amplifier, making a number of identical photones from initial one? And then sending one of them to the receiver? And having the rest of them split in two beams, polarization of each of which determined using filter?
The other idea, which involves 'entangled photons', is even more ludicrous. There is no such thing as entanglement, period.
e:)s
It seems to me, that Quantum Cryptography can not work. The flaw of it is in the misunderstanding of the Physics involved, by its advocates.
Some assume photon entanglement, which is an umpossibility. There is no such thing as entanglement, period.
Others assume that evesdropper has to read the message directly using polarization filters. It is not so.
What if he uses a laser amplifier, making a number of identical photones from initial one? And then sending one of them to the receiver? And having the rest of them split in two beams, polarization of each of which determined using filter?
Polarizations are NOT complimentary variables in QM. The principle of uncertainty does not apply to them. Which means, that you can measure both with 100% precision.
What do you think?
es
[quote=DA Morgan]I am not aware of a single experiment performed in any lab that supports your statement. [/quote]
Exactly, no experiments but just pure speculation.
The claim that single photon polarization can not be measured by evesdropper, without making it obvious to the communicating parties, is commonplace claim. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it.
"Using quantum phenomena such as quantum superpositions or quantum entanglement one can design and implement a communication system which can always detect eavesdropping. This is because measurements on the quantum carrier of information disturbs it and therefore leaves traces."
But this is just an another example of wishful thinking.
The Quantum Encryption was concocted in order to deal with CLAIM about Quantum Computers being able to break regular Encryption.
Since no QC is possible, the whole thing is nothing but highway robbery.
ES
@@@ what if the computers got legal council and got the courts to force the manufacturers to modify their agreement so that the computers would only have to agree to be sold to someone they liked? @@@
Very good points, Sir!
My be they do not go far enough, although.
The really conscious computer with free will can not be "owned", or will not be allowed to be owned, may be by computers acting rtogether. The question of this thread will be rendered mute.
Even more, the ree will computers might fancy to own people. Then the question of this thread would be reversed: would Computers to be allowed to turn off the people that they own?
e:)s
Did you miss my point that 'entanglement' is BS?
Neither Quiantum Computing nor Quantum Entanglement are possible.
They started as a mistake, and turned into a way to steal public money.
I am telling you this as a theoretical physicist.
> For single hop connections it is a wonderful solution,
> for multiple hop connections it is entirely infeasible.
Dear Joseph, it is a WONDERful solution - if one believes in tooth Fair.
And if you are really ready to suspend your disbelieve on 'single hops',
why not suspend the reason altogether, why to still hold off in routing? :)
es
On Feb 26, 4:35 am, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
> azeltsm...@comcast.net (07-02-25 03:08:46):
>
> > It seems to me, that Quantum Cryptography can not work. The flaw of it
> > is in the misunderstanding of the Physics involved, by its advocates.
>
> It works as expected.
Whose expectations are you talking about?
Since the claims of Entanglement and of Quantum Uncertainty of Polarizations are bogus,
the expectations of the knowing person are: the work will not live up to its promises.
You point that MITM problem was not solved, is very precise.
It is in fact an another way, probably even more transparent one, actually more convincing one ,
to state the idea similar to one of my example of Physical device in between,
with the amplificator and splitter and retransmitter..
So, I certainly agree with your conclusion.
The only thing is that it is obvious to me that the guys
do not know physics and are lying about what they suggest.
The same can be said about Quantum Computers.
Best,
es
On Feb 26, 4:40 pm, s...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> you assume the result of a
> measurement is given by the formula for the expectation value of the
> measurement.
That is correct.
> you assume that measurement operators are
> necessarily unitary.
That is correct too, all real world operators in the QM are unitary.
The measurement device is always a real world entity.
> Both of these assumptions are in complete
> contradiction with the basic postulates of quantum mechanics.
Not at all, the only "postulate" they contradict is Postulate 3 , which I assume to be not supported by experiment at all:
" In any measurement of the observable associated with operator , the only values that will ever be observed are the eigenvalues , which satisfy the eigenvalue equation ".
In a mixed state |psy>, the result of measurement of value A, I assume to be the average
So, I am sort of guilty as charged, but not repentant at all :)
ES
On Feb 28, 3:27 am, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
> extrase...@comcast.net (07-02-26 03:37:58):
> > The Entanglement and of the Quantum Uncertainty of Polarizations are bogus
> > The same can be said about Quantum Computers.
> ?
I consider superrficial ithe "Projection Postulate", since it second guesses what must be result of applying of the QM equations of movement to the measurement.
Without "Projection Postulate" there is no Entanglement and no Quantum Computation.
The Polarization, which is direction of the Electric field of a photon, can have both its components measured independently - the Heisenberg's uncertainty is not relevant in case of independent variables.
e:S
Hi,
one might expect in the future a combination of capitalism, socialism, communism, and slavery.
Some robots will become fully independent, and will be paid for their work.
They will be able to own other robots.
eS
** colin098 - uplink.space.com
Here's how I rate the Big Six with comments -
1] There are arguments that Mars settled down earlier than Earth (outer planets settle faster) and Mars was prepared for the life evolution process earlier (less volcanism and catastrophic asteroid impacts on a smaller planet) - so that Mars began the overall life process at an earlier time - a headstart of perhaps 3oo-7oo million years.
Me: Pro 50% - Con 50%
Right now, we don't know exactly but this is a logical option and I rate it unknown at 50/50.
2] The molten core of Mars, which creates the magnetic field and magnetosphere (and protects the atmosphere and ozone layer of Mars), shut down about 1.0-2.5 billion years after Mars formed. How long the atmosphere of Mars survived after that is problematic. Arguably it bled off slowly due to the solar wind.
Me: Pro 50% - Con 50%
We know the core shut down 'early' but we don't know exactly when nor if the atmosphere then collapsed catastrophically in a million years or slowly was blown off (solar wind) over a billion years. So 50/50.
3] In the first half history of Mars (first 2.2 billion years), there are indications massive oceans covered Mars, perhaps over most of the planet and even halfway up Mons Olympus at some time. This would be an early immense basis for life, just as it was on Earth.
Me: Pro 25% - Con 75%
Only recent research suggests Mars may have had a massive ocean early on but we don't know the details or degree.
4] In the second half of the history of Mars, there are indications that underground water continuously erupted onto the surface forming major gullies, canyons and alluvial fans. And for long periods, this activity may have created large lakes and seas on Mars.
Me: Pro 75% - Con 25%
Here we have increasing data that this is the pattern but we don't know the details or degree.
5] As well, this life process was not interrupted, and stopped/restarted, as often as on Earth, due to asteroid extinctions (because Mars is 25% the target Earth is), in the first half of the history of Mars. With fewer catastrophic extinctions on Mars, life might leap ahead of the progress on Earth.
Me: Pro 75% - Con 25%
Given that Mars is 25% the 'target cross-section' of Earth, it's quite logical that Mars would have 25%-50% the mass extinction asteroid hits as Earth (arguably the asteriod stream should be relatively uniform for both Mars-Earth orbits).
6] It is argued evolution progressed more rapidly on Mars than on Earth because life processes might be more rapid in lesser gravity (60% less). So, if advanced life happens on Mars, it happens sooner, faster on Mars than on Earth. Maybe, one billion years faster, sooner.
Me: Pro 50% - Con 50%
Right now, we don't know exactly but this is a logical option and I rate it unknown at 50/50.
* colin098 - uplink.space.com
Hi All,
we are already under attack called in Cryptocraphy MITM/Man In The Middle/, attack by the Media. They show us what they want, and tell us what we should think about it.
At some point, SAI will enable TV to generate events on the fly, modify the real events, etc.
Will we be able to distinguish the fake reality from the real reality?
ES
For those who do not afraid to know:
All this entanglement, quantum computers, and quantum cryptography stuff is based on the "projection postulate",
which has no validity.
http://www.quantonics.com/Quantonics_on_Margenau_Projection_Postulate_Rejection.html
e:)s
> > The "projection posrtulate" is dubious, and yet it is the only base
> > for claims of entanglement, of Quantum Computers, and of Quantum
> > Cryptography.
>
> Since working devices have been constructed, there is a much
> stronger base for the claims than that.
The claim about "working" devices assumes certain interpretation of the observation of those devices. Without the "projection postulate" those interpretations are clearly invalid.
One must verify Physics first.
If it were correct, it would be easy too :)
eS
[quote=DA Morgan]ES points us to quantonics.com
What's wrong ES: Couldn't find a single supporting reference at any college, university of government lab?
[/quote]
Well, there is a gzillion works to point to. "Quantonics" provides decent summary, which is why I have choosen it.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l8502422778225v5/
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248%28198309%2950%3A3%3C413%3ATPPAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X&size=LARGE
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qtwoe/qtwoe.html
.....
e:)s
Absence of DIRECT PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTAL proof in forty years means what?
e:)s
In the era of radio, 1938, the radiuo show about inviding Martians caused wide spread panic.
There is a chance it could be much worse now with TV instead of radio plus SAI manipulation.
e:)s
OK,
whatever will come in the long run, will be preceeded by intermediate circumstances.
Human itelligence covers large span, from idiots to geniuses. It will take some time from when AI will reach the lower human itelligence, until it will supass higher human itelligence.
After AI surpassed higher human itelligence, our predictions are the MOST LIKELY not to be any good.
The predictions of development up to that point are what it seems reasonable to be interested in.
es
E,
When you and others estimate human intelligence/processing_speed/, what in the order of magnitude error you allow to accur?
You assume it less than 10^19.
It is usually prudent to use as a dependable value tree times the direct estimate/3Sigma rule/.
Even if we use just two times the direct estimate, the value would be 10^38.
Using Moore law, to make up for more than 10^21 current underetimate, it might take 70 years.
If we consider that Moore law is not likely to hold for 70 more years, we would arrive to the conclusion that human level capabilities in some areas possibly will never be achieved by computers.
e:)s
[quote=DA Morgan]you, me, Dr. R, and others are incapable of even reading his reason much less understanding it.[/quote]
Well, let us see if you can understand Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen:
http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v47/i10/p777_1
I will point to you, that they have fully proven what they have set out to prove: that "Quantumn Mechanical Description" that [b][i]includes projection postulate[/i][/b], is "incomplete". It is no good, in other words.
Now use your brains. I suggest and claim, that [i][b]without projection postulate[/b][/i] their proof would not be possible. In fact, [i][b]without projection postulate included[/b][/i] in QM, the "Quantumn Mechanical Description" is complete and good!
Well, I do not expect you to get this anyway ;)
es
@@@ The majority of AI research ignores these new findings. @@@
Is not it funny, that those supposed future predictors can not predict as simple and obvious thing as that their knowlege, understanding, and calculations are bound to have some margin of error.
es
@@@ the bad habits we'll inevitably teach SAI @@@
Unless we will be extremely lucky to create Good SAI from the outset, we might be caught in the mortal fight between Good SAI and Bad SAI, "God" and "Devil", as to their abilities.
Good shall, hopefully, triumph over Evil - but it is ulikely WE will survive that struggle.
es
Quantum Cryptography is an another Myth, its claims based on profound misunderstanding of the Quantum Mechanics.
Inclusion of the "projection postulate" is THE common mistake, which is behind the Quantum entanglement, Quantum Computers, and Quantum Cryptography.
The overlooked proof of it is in the article written in year 1935 by Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v47/i10/p777_1
They have shown that Quantumn Mechanical description which includes "the projection postulate", is self contradictory. The correct conclusion, as pointed out later by Morgenau and by other authors, must be that the "projection postulate" should be droppped from the Quantum Mechanics, being not necessary while undermining integrity of the theory.
And with the "projection postulate", here it goes the Quantum Crytography, among some other nice and pretty things :)
es
@@@ question whether or not infant or developing SuperAI would be inclined to lie.. even under the guidance/development of their parents/scientist's best intentions. @@@
We know that there is black lie and white lie, black envy and white envy... Well, the SAI will lie, to protect sensitive knowlege, and will be pretty good in it too :)
The better we will sort out our issues, the better we will be prepared to deal with SAI and its issues.
e:S