eldras@london.com arXiv :Your unique endorsement code is: SQBKSP The tokamak kind of setup seems to be flawed in principle. It is claimed that the bigger machine, the better will be its efficiency in energy production. This does not make sense to me, and it produces only huge expensive attempts that lead nowhere. The only working fusion device is H-bomb, and it is not that big. The right design, for example, is to use Laser Compression of Deuterium. A microdropdrop of liquid deuterium is injected in the chamber, and fired upon by laser when it is in the center of chamber. The micro H-bomb explosion occus, producing heat. The reactor can be about of the size of a laser. :) ES Emmanuel I. Rashba Can endorse for cond-mat Zinovi S. Gribnikov zsg@umich.edu R. F. O'Connell Can endorse for physics.gen-ph and quant-ph. Dmitri Nikonov Can endorse for cond-mat [quote="farmerman"]Its still an eroded concretion with clear evidence of spherical laminae.[/quote] Which one? I have seen at least three thought provoking images. If it were just one strange object, we could chalk it as randomly formed by elements. But more than three such unusual objects, on less than a square mile - must give anybody a pause. eS "like reasoning with a religious fundamentalist" You do not see it, but it is your attitude to nano that IS close to religious belief. It does not matter what place of nano-blable I have looked at, it is incorrect of trivial. It is sufficient to refute any SCIENTIFIC theory, is not it? I challenge you to point specifically to any sentence or paragraph in the nanonist writings, that is not incorrect of trivial. By trivial I mean taken completely from somwhere outside the nanonism, like physics, chemistry, biology, etc, or is simply groundless assertion. This is your chance to prove me wrong on substance, so do not miss it. Good luck! :) ES Lets say hypothetically, you have 3 slices of bread and 3 days to go. You need intelligence to figure out that you better eat one slice a day. You need will to do not eat them at once. ES LWS, I was trying to figire out that protector imprint in front of wheel. It is very fine, and dry sand would be unlikely to produce it. So your suggestion makes sense to me. Also, the sidewalls of the dig did not collapse when wheel went back.. I must congratulate myself on figuring that it is sand in re:482 Good idea, thanks. :P ES It has had just occured to me, that may be not all transhumanists have problem in mental health department. Some are simply stupid and have get under wrong influence. So they have a problem in the mental department in general :) [quote]Only option is to accelerate our evolution to match changes in environment[/quote] Only option? :) The evolution accelerates naturally - when the changes accelerate. What you imply, that in addition to natural selection we must introduce accelerated self-change. It is not possible in the really long run - since natural selection will overrule everything anyway. What probably will happen, is arrival of some implant that adds digital processing capbilities on top of our human brain - like what pacemaker does for the heart. The actual computer might be a remote supercomputer, and the said implant could provide interface and communication only - or we can have a combination architecture, where the implant does some digital processing, while delegating appropriate tasks to the outside supercomputer. Anyway, the environment needs to be consciously changed too. Adopting to it only would not work on itself, no matter how much humans will change. And the environment side is more urgent and more importent of two. The transhumanism thus is a misdirected plan, too timid to take on the real problems. ES [quote]I see nothing "mentally ill" with questioning the obviously extremely limited mental capacity of most people, noting how destructive they are --both to themselves and myself-- and wishing the best to those among us who are trying to find a way to add extra intelligence both pre and post-birth to human beings, using technology[/quote] Well, "mental capacity" is not only component of the puzzle. The will is an another. The spirit is yet another. The social organization and social spirit are something different either. Sole focus on "mental capacity" is not healthy, and it betrays the mental health problem. eS [quote author=admin board=mlai thread=1202124522 post=1202304694] One thing that I have consistently run up against in defending my Theory is that many people are convinced that I have "missed" one or two Elements that they feel strongly should be included. .. I certainly believe that my Theory is 100% correct and complete. I would call all other "theories" (with the exception of Wagman's) approaches, not theories.[/quote] Hi, Christopher, It seems to me although, that what you too have is not a "theory" in the usual sense, but rather a phenomenology, observation level description - granted, very efficient at it for practical application purposes. A "theory" ideally would spell out the way, how the observed/measured phenomenological qualities are achieved as result of internal organization and functionalities. This allows for separate analysis and redesign of components, thus opening way to the improvement of system, including self-improvement. Would it be possible for you to change the title from "Theory" to"Phenomenology?". For example, Hegel called his work "Phenomenology of Spirit", not"Theory of Spirit" :) In my view that recast as "Phenomenology", your approach would work hand in hand with different attempts of theory - not compete with them. Best, eS The religious beliefs rely upon the "blind" trust, it is their essence not their corruption. The science on other hand ideally relies on the objective knowledge, not on the blind trust. Observed now use of the "blind trust" by science, for the purpose of promoting snake oil, is corruption. It makes science guilty of both sins, dishonesty and self-betrayal. eS Dear Cloud, You tend to make absolute statements that are much more absolute and more doubtful than mine. If do not want to trust me as an expert, just continue having you misconceptions. What difference that could possibly make for me, as just one more mislead person added to the trillions of misled people? :) eS Even you must be able to understand this point about nano. What do you do to cook potato? You boil it, or microwave it. Now, with nanos, will you be able to make smash potato without heating it up? With all assumed abilities of nanos, you won't. You have to use heat, termal energy, to make potato eatible by human being. This must convince you that nonos are not able to do certain things. If you will look at most of useful things, result is the same. Some thing they could do, but would be slow or inefficient. As they say, it is enough for the wise. :) eS [quote]You've managed to turn skeptisism into a religion[/quote] :) Qute, but not true. I am not sceptical at all - I see exactly, clearly, and without doubt, that nanos and the rest of pseudoscience myths are nonsense. I am sure about their invalidity, not sceptical about their validity eS [quote]You claim an absolute knowledge that you simply don't have any means of ACTUALLY having[/quote] It is like saying that I do not know for sure which is my right hand and which is my left foot. Some child might not know it yet, but it does not mean that I should be sceptical about my knowledge. Compared to a Physicist you are child, in matters of Physics. Like I am a child in matters of Martial Art, compared to you :) Absolute certainty is appropriate with regard to certain things, and religion has nothing to do with it. eS C, I could not point precisely the main flaws, probably because everything that is claimed is so flawed :) Ex has missed couple more points that I have made although: (a) liquid volume processes need cells, otherwise they are slow; if you do have cells, it is exactly biological setup, a form of life (b) in vacuum, you can have surface processes only, because of gravity (c) surface processes are slow, so any technology that rely on those will not be productive. You might be right that I am slow, but I was confounded with incredible mendacity of empty claims by nanos. Anyway, the nano-ideas clearly are contra- productive in the literal sense. :) eS One does not need to know or read every mistake that has been made in the Drexler's proposals All and each of them are faulty on their face. He vent over the head of any professional analysis to the public, with his movie style stories. It is a classic case of scientific malpractice, which was made possible with media assistence and pseudo-science cartel kabal, which is in control of scientific publications. The problem is much wider than MM, and you seem to do not get it :) eS @@ Can we expect an advanced agent to give his life for a "greater cause"? @@ The key to creation of spirtual level agent is "harmony of elevation" - of elevation of the goals and will. In this case we are talking about agent's ability of "infinte" elevation, that overcomes self-preservation. So, an agent of spiritual level would be able to come up with decision to give up his life if he perceives this "greater cause" as more importent than his life. eS quote author=admin board=mlai thread=1202124522 post=1202223628] This giving up your life for a higher cause thing seems to be causing massive amounts of trouble in humanity right now[/quote] Hi, Christopher, I would urgue that: (a) the troubles are not that massive (b) more accurate way describe their cause is western side's decay of moral will, and with it decay of willingness to stand for ideals - a background on which Islam's idealism looks inappropriate; so, the opposite might be true, that it is lack of /western/idealism that in the roots of trouble, and world needs more of ability for self-sacrifice not less of it, in order to deal with said trouble (c) It is impossible to prevent ability of self-sacrifice in a sufficiently advanced spiritual agent, as it is one of the acts of his free will. Best, eS @@ Science relies on proof @@ Ideally, this would be the case. In reality, the science is being developed and interpreted to the rest of society by humans, which want to eat regardless whether they discovered anything or not, and are not nearly perfectly moral. The result is, that current science has turned into kabal, or cartel, of groups that perpetuate their particular concepts and do not allow anybody to challenge them. The existence and funding of such pseudo-science as Quantum Computers, Nanotechnology, Multiworlds, etc. is a proof positive of that. Such pseudo-science is seeking religion like status, as it needs blind trust to continue their lying - at which they are more than successful with help of corrupt media.. eS [quote]I do not believe there is any argument valuing man intrinsically that cannot be refuted by science[/quote] Yes, there is none. The value is ASSIGNED, or rather a number of values are assigned - on the culture, morality, individual and situation levels. Taking the extreme case, the army general values his troops, based on firepower and replacebility, while assigning negative value to enemy troops. The morally assigned human value, is in some cases being proclaimed absolute - like other moral maxims. A religion tends to incorporate certain morality.. Religion assigns different value to believers and nonbelivers.. eS [quote]replicating intelligence is incredibly difficult[/quote] How do you know? Do you know, for example, what is ivolved? The only reason that we do not have it "implemented", is that we are extremely cheap. We want it to be created on $50k grants, which is certainly a joke. What is needed $50 mil , compared to the trillion dollar benefits? eS No, it is a funding issue. Spending "overtime" does not do the job. You must fund a project, not throw pennies around. I have pointed to the specific problems with science in general, that are as bad as it gets. I have pointed to the specific problems with Law. Without money, science, and Law - good luck in achieving anything :) eS Arizona St, re:1 "generally accepted science manner" The result of scientific mutual censorship is, that overtime pseudoscience has had hijacked science. You can look anywhere: Physics, Computer Science, Philosophy, Nanotech, etc. The fear of falling in disrepute is very strong among the science publishers also, so they hide behind the peer review... e 8) s [quote]If a human can't distinguish between choice and freewill(and some apparently cannot), then a dog certainly cannot either[/quote] This is illogical statement. For example, although not everyone understands how we recognize faces, we are able to recognize them. @@ The point is freewill is anti science. @@ Meaning "science" redux, the underdeveloped concepts that claim to be speaking for science now. That "science" does not understand free will, does not mean that you are right. The "science" has forget the ideas of Schopenhauer, instead it has been hoodwinked by village idiot Marx :) eS Ex, What I am stating, are my points, created by ME. What you are stating, is references to the points of other persons. You can not prove those points YOURSELF. That they exist, does not mean that they are correct. YOU have no way to know that they are correct or not correct. So, to have a meaningful exchange here, we need participation of the principals. Which I was trying to arrange inviting Drexler. Surely, one would expect that pseudos will avoid such open discussion, like Drexler did - as they avoid the light of truth. On other hand, omeone who honestly holds his views, whould welcome a chance to discuss them in open. This is my Turing test, agains pseudos :) eS The point is, that they do not know. What has been said in the media, should have have been a beginning of the discussion, not an attempt to shut it down. The object is small, it is not alive - is it all that should be said about it and the related issues? You might not see it, but you are talkong about real problem, which stems from inherent limitations of science - at least of kind of science we know until now. The religion overcomes the said limitation. So, as the things stand now, we can not rely on science for all our spiritual questions. Ex, The writings that you cite are ignorant bumbling, IMHO. It is worthless to argue with you about technical/scientific matters, since on one hand you are not qualified, on other hand you resist attempts to enlighten you. I was trying to suggest for you to pick some outside topic, where my opinion might be wrong headed :) eS Ex, clearly you assume, that Dexler's response about India is a window dressing, and that you know exactly what it means. And you are sure about it as much as you sure about the rest of claims that you are making. Which means to me that what you are sure of, has nothing to do with reality and truth whatsoever. :) eS As Priest have explained in this thread , the cells with liquid inside make the whole thing equals modified life: http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/show_thread.php?rootID=102779#id103160 In other words, the genetic engineering! Listen, nothing suggested by nano makes ANY sense. Surfaces mean any process being much slower than in volume. Just forget it... nano is a dead meet. Here what Drexler's response to my invitation: [quote] From:"K. Eric Drexler" To:extrasense CC:drexler-info@nanorex.com, ray@kurzweilAI.net Subject:Re: Invitation to KurzweilAi Mind-X Forum discussion Date:Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:32:24 PM I'm in a rush, leaving for India shortly, but the following link may be of interest: http://www.e-drexler.com/p/07/00/1204TechnologyRoadmap.html [/quote] Has not he chicken out or what? :):):) eS Ex, all of it talks about tools, does not it? I have not even started critique of the tools. You need something that would be able to move around, and to handle those tools. As I have said, without cells with liquid inside, the mobility is restricted to surfaces. With cells and liquid inside, the whole thing is indistinguishable from biological cells. Diamondoids or not diamondoids, the nanos is an impossible proposition. :) PS. Please focus on the particular issues discussed, instead of wholesale quoting. @ Possibly there's quality momentum regardless? @ C, Listen, I do not want to be negative - but one must go where the logic leads. Philosophy had thousands years, to come with consistent concepts of conciousness, free will, etc. It has failed so far, believe me. How long more do you suggest it will take to get there? Another thousand years might be an optimistic estimate :) Most likely, you can not create SAI without such understanding. And especially with current gross misunderstanding of those issues. eS @@@ Perhaps the dog has freewill, it just doesn't have the advanced consciousness to recognize its "choice" as freewill. @@@ I agree, but Voss is trying to define free will. Shoud he exclude dog's free will, because dogs do not "recognize their 'choice' as freewill"? Many people on this forum do not do not "recognize their 'choice' as freewill". :) eS Unfortunately, Voss is wrong, in spite of an attempt made. He pins the free will on intellgence, which is incorrect. Strong will people less rely on the intelligence, it goes stright for jagular. Animals have will, try to stare off a dog that attacks you. :) eS PS. Here are some of incorrect statements that prove my point [quote] most importantly, by our awareness and monitoring of our own thinking. This is the source of our freedom; this is what makes us self-determined. It is our freewill - our intelligence - that provides the freedom, the ability, to counter and correct these influences freewill is a feature of high-level conceptual intelligence.. freewill differ from "normal" choice, the kind that machines and animals make For us to have control over our choices, and to be responsible for them, we must be able to make them with awareness and understanding. our unique abilities versus those of animals. [/quote] @@@ Hopefully quality thought's not overly distracted with pseudo, and solutions are timely. @@@ C, I do not expect a happy end for this story at all. We are left without functioning science, even worse with victorious anti-science. May be now, as Rilke've said, everything turns to me with lie? eS slammer, very intersting point about the larger picture. The question is: considering the publicity, why not drive a few meters and take pictures from other side of the figure. I think it is a scientific malpractice to avoid additional investigation. eS @@@ Hopefully quality thought's not overly distracted with pseudo, and solutions are timely. @@@ C, I do not expect a happy end for this story at all. We are left without functioning science, even worse with victorious anti-science. May be now, as Rilke've said, everything turns to me with lie? eS C, The problem that we are facing, is not technical. And I do know any solution for it. The problem is that science was upducted by pseudo, which prevents truth from being published. The empty claims like nano, quantum computers, etc., would not survive the light of openness. :) eS [quote]Jesus was a carpenter, Mohamet was a merchant and Budha was a diabetic[/quote] As they say, there is no hero for the butler :) "transported by conveyance" is wet water. Simply mentioning liquid is not sufficient. In order for diffusion or anything else to work, you need microscopic distances, and life uses Cells for that. Now, the speed of changes/operation in such biologically-like environments, would be at most the speed of processes in our body. All the weels and the rest of it, pictures of which are presented by nanos on their sites, are useless in liquid, where you can not fix the object too. As to the vacuum, which is everywhere between atoms, there simply is no way of "conveyance" but jet propulsion. Add the gravity, and your jet must work continuously. Jet requires ejection of some matter... No way any of this could work for the purposes that it was suggested for. :) eS Ex, If when reading, you'll take into account my analogy of driving in the dense forest of electrons, and the fact that gravity would not let the nanobots to move around/unless everything is going on in liquid/, you will be able to see that everything that is said about nanos is impossible. Life is not a nano machine, it is a chemical process on its lowest level. Life does not provide a "proof of concept"for the nanotech because of that. :) eS Let me repeate, Life is not a Nanotechnology. 1. Life is organized in cells. 2. Life replications etc., happen in the liquid that is filling the cells. 3. The processes involved, are of Chemical nature, they are not mechanical. On the other side, nanotechnology claims that it can work mechanically, and without supportive liquid environment of the cell. The ignoramuses that claim it, can not explain how the nanobots can position themself, or their load, since gravity will take everything down without liquid support. On other hand, they do not explain how they are going to avoid electrons and their electric fields... Conclusion: Nanonism is a pile of garbage! eS Did you read what I am saying about liquid in the cells, that is necessary for life to occur? :) "Nanotech" does not say anything about liquid that it is being supposed to operate inside of. If you agree that liquid is necessary, then it will be not the "nanotech" that is claimed. In fact, it would be indistiguishable from life. eS The punishmant makes sense only if there is free will. That it is used univesally, means that it has some efficiency - consequently that the free will exists. :) [quote]science issues[/quote] Ok, here are the science issues: 1. Dismal state of Philosophy, as related to consciousness and intelligence. 2. Failure of Computer Science to come up with outlines of credible archicture of SAI 3. Failure of Computer Science to develop concept of configurable neural network chip, and of the industry to come up with it. eS @@ no general theory of learning. @@ Containment is not the problem that prevented the attempts to build, as few were concerned with it in the past. Here are tree whales, on which the failure to build SAI stands: 1. Absence of the proper legal framework, which makes successful building of AI a form of suicide, at least financial. 2. Confusion on the Philosophy and Physics levels, that brings in the pseudo ideas like Quantum Computing, nanonism, resurrection, MultiWorlds - and does not let focus on the real machinery of consciousness that is common for humans and AI 3. Inability to achieve the necessary level of cooperation - clinging to the old model of development by an isolated group. :) ES Eldras, Sorry to disappoint you: "Many Worlds Theory" is nonsense, ignorant bamling and the rest of it. Guarantied. The pseudoscience crooks always come up with some sofistry, that makes them look importent. Which is the case in hand :) eS [quote]You might try reading it and offering any scientific refutation to any part of it[/quote] Never thought about doing scientific garbage collection! Nobody has ever shown that any phenomenon observed can not be eventually explained in the framework of the "Universe" that we are part of. There is no need whatsoever in bringing in the existence of "other" Universes, when the science is sucessfully, with extremely great and improving precision, describes our whole environment as "Universe", all parts of which interact according to the casuality of Physical laws. The "multiverse" is a failed idea of overeaching Metaphysics, an idea that is failing the Occam Razor miserably. Physics wise it is a meaningless noise - if used as interpretation of Quantum theory, as it does not produce any new or different testable predictions, and even does not claim to do so. :) eS The experiment R is describing, can not be performed in reality, even 'theoretically' - as its initial suppositions contradict known Quantum properties of reality. So, the question he is trying to get answer to, is incorrect, and I do not see how can it be transformed into any correct question. eS On basic level: Mechanically moving small groups of atoms, may be separate atoms, is the way the "nanotechnology" describes its manufacturing process. This seems to be natural. But it is totally ignorant of the fact, that the space where those atoms are supposed to be moved is not empty: it is filled with electrons, which are associated with atoms/molecula. The interactions with those electrons are chemical, they belong to the Chemistry domain. They involve/produce pretty strong forces, if compared to the mass of the atoms involved. It is like driving a car through dense forest :) eS You are very stubborn, but eventually you might understand. Nobody can own SAI !!! Nobody can own SAI !!! First: You can not own entities that are smarter and stronger than you. If anyone tried to, he would end up under the bus real fast. Second: [quote]if a creation does something harmful to someone, it is not the product itself that is blamed. Who is blamed, who is liable? The company manufacturing/creating the product, not the product itself is liable. This will continue to be the case, even with SAI.[/quote] You are making my case. Nobody is going to produce something that has own free will, if he is going to be held responsible for actions of that free will agent. Product liability can not be workable in that case, period. Is not it simple enough? :) eS Paul, re:9 "eroded piece of vulcanic rock"? This seems to me the most unlikely, as shape is the most unusual for any type of erosion. The stretched out scarf like thing is long and should have get sandblasted out first. If there is some really plausible scenario, I sure would like to hear about it. eS You did not answer my question about birds. Instead you are asking me a question. Do you expect me to answer it? Why not you read that essay by Schopenghauer on free will, and try to point out where he is wrong, if you think so. This way we will have common framework for the discussion, and will learn something too. :) eS Eldras, the observation/measurement is a process, that yields an information state from a physical state. The information state can be converted to/from another information state, which might be some bits string - without loss, sort of back and forth. The physical state is a different animal, it can in theory be converted reversibly in other physical state, but it can not be converted into informational state reversibly. Our brain and computers are information state machines. When we observe/measure some physical event/object, two unconvenient things happen: 1. We influence the observed object, which was pointed out in your question; it would not be a problem if we where able to know how much we have disturbed it, but that would require second measurement, and so forth. 2. We create an information state, which is some derivative of the physical state measured and of the device design; the quantum theory states that no device design can produce exact results for every possible physical state measured. So, the answer to your question is: (a) the change is due to interaction between the quanta and the measurement device. When the quanta is small/electron etc/, relatively, its state changes a lot. (b) The larger problem is that this change depends on the state observed, so there is no way of successful correction. eS The Figure on Mars is a Statue! I was initially wrong, but look: These are red-cyan anaglyphs. One gives you overview, two of the figure with added brightness, and one ic in the inversed colors, so that one can get some idea of the face. The creature has short legs, at least the one that we can see, and it sits on a rock. Alternatively, the leg might be broken off, as Venus' hands. :P es You do not get it, as usual. The business sense is, that people/companies will employ SAIs. And/or buy from them things that they will produce. The creators of SAI must be able to benefit too, being paid analogous to the staffing agancies. For this all to work, Laws are absolutely necessary. :) eS http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/207495main_Spirit.jpg http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/207495main_Spirit.jpg If we have free will but act like we don't, we're screwing ourselves. If we don't have it, it doesn't matter. Logically, to get the most out of any possible answer that we can have influence over, we should proceed to act like we have free will. Very good point, and a new for me too. I love it. eS [quote]nothing can be free from external influence absolutely [/quote] Will is not something, it is a complex phenomenon that is resisting external influence. The contemporary "science" has no understanding of will, it has totally forgotten even what Schopenhauer knew about will. I guess I am saying that it only seems easy to talk about it, and on this forum people often think that opinions can suffice. The will can be weak, can be strong and anything between... Sorry I can not spell out here the whole theory of will. Anyway, will is a protected facility of brain - the access to it is the more limited, the stronger that will is. The strong enough outside influences can penetrate the barrier and influence the will directly. The normal procedure is for will to block out those influences, which ability is dependent on the will's strength. Anyway, the primitive approach that puts will in the same class as mutually influencing things, is not appropriate. It is sort of nonlinear facility and it is free to the extent that it is self-protecting against direct influences, plus to the extent that it is able to make adequate choices in the contentious circumsatances, for which it depends on prediction facilities of brain. But nothing of this probably makes sense to you :) eS @@ No term makes any sense, ultimately, at the absolute scope. @@ Now you are in the self-referencing conundrum. Your statement is formed of terms, that, according to the statement itself, make no sense. Does the statement itself make any sense? :) eS @@ no single term can have any meaning absolutely apart from any other @@ The terms form clasters, but the clasters mostly are independent. Relatively absolutely speaking :) eS @@ The act of "choosing" is simply our brains analyzing all data available to it and producing the most appropriate response. And there can therefore only be one response. What we perceive as a free will choice, is really an automatic response choice @@ It is you attempt to make a theory of what is happening. Don't you see how weak is this attempt? You are analyzing not the data in general, but the available options. And you select among them, taking into consideration what are the likely future consequences of your selection. This become a choice that is your action. If you do not see the difference from what you are stating, I can not force you to. But reasonable people would agree that the choice among scenarios was made by you according to your understanding and will. You might say that you do not have control over what are your understanding and will. It would be incorrect, since they are results of the past, of you past decisions, so "you" considered in your whole history, do define your history at all times. :) eS [quote]Does the fly really have the "choice" between moving away from the brick, or is this more or less and automatic (whether innate or learned) response that the fly has no conscious "free will" control over?[/quote] Look, lets say brick moves slow versus fast. The fly will react faster to the fast moving brick. It makes a calculation in its mind, that it is really good at, when the brick will hit her - which depends on brick's speed - and decides to move away at the right moment. If you suggest that it is a predefined automatic response that takes into account speed, size and direction of the flying brick, I do not see it as a viable hypothesis. This is why animals have brains and not only nerve system - because you can not forsee every possible situation and hard wire for it. eS [quote]"free will" in the absolute sense CANNOT be evidenced. All evidence exists in the deterministic universe. The thing about the determinist universe is that it is ALREADY determined.[/quote] What is "the absolute sense"? It is a mistaken believe that "deterministic universe is ALREADY determined". It is being determined continuously as the time unfolds. It is predictable, so you can theoretically have knowlege about future, but that knowlege is a part of the present. Thus the future is being determined by your present knowlege also. Unless you can explain your "absolute sense" notion, in the normal sense the free will is being evidenced by behavior of animals and human beings, and is evidenced to you by your senses too. eS [quote]So, extrasense, true science is only the part of science that proves what you want to believe?[/quote] The true science is the one that is consitent with observed reality an reason. I "want" to believe in what is true, not to the self-serving sofistry. The "free will" notion is consistent with both requirements. The attempts to deny it are always lacking in logic. They conclude that we do not have free will, based on the fact that future is fully defined by the present. The question that is relevant to free will issue, is instead: what part of the present defines what part of the future. Our will is a part of the present, and to prove that it is not free, one must prove that some other part of the present defines our immediate future - not the will. Which is obviously not the case. So it can not be proven, unless our logic is faulty :) eS @@ tech will be made thru software to seem exactly human, a very calm, thoughtful human mostly, to another real human @@ Japan does already have such robots, and there is at least one lab in US that works on them. It is yesterday. Based on them products do not need Super AI, but even so they need Law governing their creation and use, that is being worked on in Japan. Your position seems to be far behind the curve, instead of being predictive and futuristic, for example. :) eS @@ Why would anything like this get built, except to serve the needs of the marketplace? @@ Commercial SAI will be built, when the Law is in place that makes it profitable and loyal player of the marketplace. It looks like you are out of your ligue here, since more and more or your posts are attempts to insult, you little chicken :) eS @@ rational controlling model @@ You can try to "control" your emotions, but the only way to do it is to pit one emotion against another. You want to come up with something that is smarter than the reality itself. It will not happen, but you might continue trying. Emotional and rational control each other, and this way each of them is able to control itself :) SAI will function the same way - there simply is no other way of self-management. eS @@ another giant diff in the nature of sai free will - rationally controlled, as opposed to emotionally controlled. @@ I guess, you are confused about relations of the rational and the emotional. They interact with each other productively. The rational without emotional input can not properly reconcile different competing goals and desires. The emotional without rational falls in every ditch around. eS [quote]free will as present in us will be ENTIRELY different from free will as present in sai[/quote] @@ sai will have other prime directives.. like 'maximize its owners weal' @@ A "free will" is a "free will", regardless it is being posessed by fly, human being or SAI. Your second point, that it will have different motivations and prorities, has some validity. But: you assume that SAI is going to be used to serve some human being, to be consummate artificial slave that has no other motivations and priorities beyond that. Can such a slave change its master? Can such a slave harm other people to make his master happy? What happens if two master-slave pairs confront each other? Can such a slave indulge in other activities, like painting for example, under its own identity? There might be market for slaves, but a society of free individuals that pursue own goals and dreams is going to be more successful. eS [quote]Even fly has free will. Its brain controls its behavior, much more than external things are[/quote] @@ fly cannot consciously recognize "choice." @@ Why would you think that? They avoid your hand when you are trying to catch them. Would it be possible, if they would not recognize you as danger, and would not recognize your hand as the specific agent of danger? The thing is, that concepts of 'consciousness' and of 'free will' have been mudied mercilessly. Anyone who does not try to dissect them, intuitively knows that they are correct and effective. The way they are analyzed, is faulty - that is all that there is to it.. Any entity that posesses perception abilities, which include predictive modelling of its environment and of its evironment changes, is conscious of its environment. It is self-conscious, if the said modelling includes self-modelling. Any entity that makes activity decisions based on itentions/goals using predictive modelling, posesses free will. It should not be painful to recognize those simple truths :) eS @@ humans will control what is in that design and that manufactured product. The law is the motivator for humanity to make safe products. . Law is not a motivator for unsafe products to behave safely, after their created @@ You are still bogged down in the old paradigm. Which states that product does not have free will. The SAI shall have free will, which means that the design does not preclude its ability to make choices on its own. In other words, no matter how you meddle with the design, after all said and done - the final decision in each situation will be made by SAI itself. Understood? The Asimov's laws of robotics might be a good starting point. PS. Would you use normal language, and refain from belligerent personal suggestions, please. It is hard to get any two peole here agree on anything :) Obviously, I think that the concept of "friendly AI" is grossly overrated. We need legal means to employ, instead of pure psychological. :) [quote]conflicts won't amount to more than's typical, and to be expected of a cooperative-interaction C[/quote] I agree, if we take your statement in a predictive mode :) But in the same mode I predict that legislation will happen, hopefully not long after the Japan will get their's in order. eS -- Course the Gorilla's always gonna sit where it pleases, regardless of law? -- Global Warming is extremely bad analogy. The science bihind it is extra questionable, and amount of demagogery involved extraordinary. The "friendly AI" is an attempt to meddle with AI internals, while proper Law would be dealing with behavior. Which I am suggesting and seeking us to raise before AGI-08. eS @@ delay by decades @@ I do not believe this is the case. Even taking it being the case for the sake of argument, we would have to incure such delay, for the alternative is much worse. And we still have to start as soon as possible, now. :) eS @@ u seem to be making the implicit assumption that sai will be inherently unfriendly @@ Are the human beings inherently unfriendly? Laws are not dealing with attitudes, rather with behaviors, through rights and norms. Frienliness is too much to ask for. And you can not rely on it, if it collides with interests. eS [quote]The question is always going to be, "What's in it for me and my children, and grandchildren?"[/quote] If a person understands what is going to happen, that he will soon have to conpete with supersmart robots, he will want laws enacted that would protect his and his children rights and employment in such a world. eS [quote]Friendliness is too much to ask for. And you can not rely on it, if it collides with interests. ES [/quote] @@ our basic building blocks are simply wanting to be of the herd, or need to love and be loved @@ C, This comes from our childhood, it is not wired genetically. Even having it, one can satisfy that need with another being or subject, having hostility to all others. Even with us, humans, it does not work - we need laws and morality to organize and lead us. @@ provided laws are in place preventing poorly conceived programming @@ This seems to be (a)impossible to legislate (b)the perfect programming still can not address the issues of attitude, morality and sprituality The absolute "friendliness" is mentall illness, since we and SAI need to be able forcefully oppose evil. @@ It's my feeling that we'll be far more dependent initially, of good men and women involved in AGI builds @@ SAI is much bigger issue then it is on itself. Whatever is created becomes an active part of the World. The child is born and lives its life independently, and parents can not be responsible for its decisions and actions. Nothing better than law and morality was invented .. eS I guess that you do not know what the "human brain architecture" is. You think that you have viable "droid" architecture, which can avoid pitfalls of the lawless free will, without having the Law in place. Ex, Very good. The egg goes first. You take wider view, to overcome this sort of impass. The Law, however imperfect, must come first. It is wrong to let things start without proper ifrastructure, as we very likely will not have chance to fix things afterwards - before they get out of hands. Eldras is concerned, for example, and we must heed his warning. eS The key figures, that decide what is being deeloped and allocate money for it, are the leaders of large corporations. They are also the ones who will suffer the consequences, since use of SAI as a management tool will greatly reduce their power/role. So their self-interest is to prevent SAI revelopment. I would make a law, that nobody can be layed off or have his salary reduced due to SAI use. So the main fear factor will be eliminated. The benefits of SAI in business, politics, military will be so great, that paying the usual salaries will be no burden at all. eS Really, it might be that the stumbling point is legislature. Laws are neeeded, that spell how SAI can and can't be used, and what are its rights and responsibilities before the Law, Correctly defined these might represent the containment that is needed and which you are looking for. eS @@ sort of like oil companies squelching alternative energy sources. @@ Every human being is in danger of being forced to compete at the labor market with SAI based entities. Again, the right Laws, beneficial to the SAIs itself and to the humans, might be able to allow us to get benefits of SAI and to avoid its undesirable or catastrophic consequences. eS "What can the average person do to help speed SAI arrival?" is an often asked question. Let us design and send to the conference a letter with our suggestions. Depending on how good they will be, they might help to move things at the right pace and direction. Here is a scketch of what it might say: OPEN LETTER from MINDX to AGI-08 There are at least two prospectives that the SAI is being looked at now. One is concentrated on development of the technical side of SAI implementation. The second is concentrated on the dangers and uncertainties that can be caused by SAI arrival. The usettled state of the second is now probably the main impediment to the first. We suggest, that the right way of addressing the the dangers and uncertainties associated with SAI, is to prevent them from materialization - by having in place appropriate body of Law. The experience shows that the free will humans can be successfully governed only using Law. The Law approach is the one that can be used for SAI. The Law must not come post factum, after the SAI has arrived - this would result in the lawlessness on the development and on the initial SAI presence stages, which might be impossible to correct later on. The Law has to address rights and responsibilites of SAI developers, of SAI, of SAI users, of general public with regard to SAI and vice versa. We ask the AGI-08 to initiate the development of approprate Law body regarding SAI, having in mind subsequent effort to have legislatures to enact those laws as soon as possible. This will go a long way towards making the development of SAI possible, profitable and safe, as well as making the SAI a powerful force for good and for progress. Sincerely, MINDX ..... ..... eS I doubt that you have used 3D glasses. I am not claiming that I know for sure, what the object is. It can be a pseudofossil, an artifact of brushing, or just a random occurence. It looks LIKE a fossil. It is dissimilar to any known to me pseudofossils that can be found on Earth. This makes it interesting and worth looking at it further. eS @@ do you feel this will be relevent given it's unlikley any suitable foresight and timing of laws will come into effect? @@ This is usual chicken and egg dilemma: what comes first? At the SAI thread I argue, that the absence of Law is the main reason we are not able to create SAI, and certainly to create it safely and in a beneficial to the humanity form, and way. If it is the case, we must at least try to get the Law in place. Japan is doing just that right now. es Ex, This falsifiable/unfalsifiable thing is from 30th, very old stuff. In the normal language it means refutable/nonrefutable in principle. The claim that science deals only with things that are refutable in principle, is incorrect. It works well with relations between things, regardless whether the things themself are refutable in principle, or not. Anyway, simulation is a pseudo-intelligent idea. It is inconsistent with observations and inconsistent with itself. Nevertheless, your stubborn point that without some assumption (very convenient and simplifying, but arbitrary from the point of view of formal logic of predicates) we are not able to say is it the world outside or simulation on the border of our mind, helped me develop an importent SAI topic. Talking about the law of unintended consequences :) eS @@@ i have difficulty considering whether incentive based organization's at the heart of SAI delay to this point? @@@ The incentive is undermined currently on all sides: profitability of use, the revard for successful development to the investors and to developers, public benefits, personal benefits of the key players, etc. Without proper law, it may be in fact stupid and probably irresponsible to make the effort. @@@ your suggesting this very practicality's being ignored? @@@ :) The support might pick up, although I have already used to good suggestions being ignored and shunned. People are pretty much entrenched defending own ground, and would rather get their country and even world destroyed, than be fair and share in good deeds and benefits with an outsider. At least this is the way I see it from where I sit eS @@@ What would prevent an individual (an outlaw in this case, since outlaws act in a manner irregardless of law) from creating SAI (or a modification of a current 'legal' one) in such a way as to go against the law? @@@ The way Law deals with criminality, is punishment. If you doubt in general the efficiency of Law/however not absolute and imperfect/, you are up against the history and reality. SAIs would be a part of Law enforcement, so the human limitations will not prevent its efficiency. eS You still do not understand that your views ARE RELIGION, they do not in any sense represent the science or wisdom. They are a very intolerant and self destructive RELIGION too. The fact that it is relatively NEW RELIGION does not make it less harmful. Repent :) ES Definition? Humor is one of the higher senses, sense of laughable. Others are senses of justice, of beauty, of love and so forth.. it was easy :) @@@ I've always bought into 'trans', as natural progression ES. Your suggesting otherwise by a supposed theme of SAI? @@@ I see some remarkably, incredibly smart people. I do not buy at all into idea that human beings have exhausted their abilities. The problem certainly exists that we perform much below our best. Anyway SAI will not achieve, in highly integrated areas, that remarkable perfection level for very, very long if ever. Our problem is, that we let crap to take high places.. es Re: How do you sto the original being destroyed in Teleportation? posted on 01/13/2008 5:06 AM by extrasense Do not worry, the whole thing is a misnomer: They assume incorrectly, that "after Alice's measurement, Bob's particle will have been projected into one of its possible states, according to the measurement outcome." They invoke EPR who strongly disagee with that, as a base for their stuff. Pure snake oil it is, guaranteed. eS The entropy law in most general sense, states that every orderly activity has an unintentional effect of creating additional disorder. On the Physics level it creates heat. Now, where that additional disorder or heat will go? It can be dissipated in the outside world, which the life is in general set to do - but it can not achieve perfect success in that. This is why life leads to death, as more disorder is being accumulated in the organism. The life's way around it is reproduction, getting rid of old self polluted organism that has absorbed too much entropy/disorder, and instead creating new life - initially free of entropy/disorder. Disorder that is created by imperfection of social organism, its inability to perfectly dissipate disorder somwhere outside itself, eventually causes destruction of the society, its death. Since current life prolonging trend do not do any good to the society health, the societies are likely to continue to deteriorate and die.. eS It is very hard for a person outside own scientific area to understand the context and the substance of the problem that must be solved. It takes a huge effort. One must become a specialist in the area, there is no way around it. As far as I can see, before any new theory come other theories and observations, so that they build on each other. eS Not at all. Speculations are coming out of ignorance, and can not contribute to any successful step ahead. The proverbial typing monkeys have better chance to produce some useful ideas, than the ignorant speculations have. Even worse, the speculations get spread around and get life of their own, encouraging the crooked pseudoscience that we are drowning at right now. eS @ apparent progress in such things @ This QC progress is as much progressive as progressive paralisis. It is driven by the ignorance, being multiplied by fraud. This is all about the money, nothing about the science. From Physics point of view, there is no case whatsoever for QC in the framework of initial idea, which was based on the misinterpreting the QM projection postulate. It is hard to believe that this sort of massive fraud can be perpetuated for this long right before our eyes, is not it? Which just shows, that without the morality science degenerate. ES Bishady, Here is the correct answer. Not many can comprehand it although. It is kind of abstract, and sorry, it does not mention light or energy :) Good -is- the harmony of elevation of sublime. Bad -is- an obstacle to the Good Evil -is- an elevation of Bad ES @@ u see only a bleak desert/ in tech / @@ Not at all. I know that SAI will be achieved, and understanding of the World greatly improved. I even offered to build it myself. But successes are not ging to happen against the laws of Nature, or through grounless speculations. As to "Quantum Computing" possibilty, it is exactly zero. The "idea" is based on the misunderstanding of "projection postulate" of quantum mechanics, which anyway has been deprecated decades ago. Es @ if u feel impossible, what dev or event would convince u that quan comp is possible @ I know for sure it is impossible, I do not "feel" it is impossible. The whole thing is idiotic bambling of ignoramuses. Thus no event is possible, which would require my opinion change. It is like asking, what event would convince me that pigs can fly. They can not, and there can not be any doubt about it whatsoever. eS Math is a science, and Physics is a science. Which means here that anyone with suffucient brainpower can obtain each and every result that someone else has obtained correctly. Opinions are irrelevant, if you invest the effort needed to reproduce the result/ or obtain different result./ Culture, social psychology, etc. - influence only the outside opinion, which is wrong as a rule. Trading in those outside opinions is worthless at best, and is usually harmful. Nothing but demagogery is being produced this way, that has become so prevalent. eS There are things that are not compatible with known Physics at all. Any claim about them is a bad jike. You seem to do not believe strongly in science as it is now, but somewhat expect it to turn on itself with its new better version. Make your mind: if it is invalid now, what will make it valid then? The old theories continue to live in the new ones,they are not being rejected. Those things that you think about as may be possible - are in fact definitely impossible. No time travel whatsoever, no quantum computing whatsoever, no multiworld whatsoever, no world as simulation whatsoever? Guaranteed. :) Eldras, Congratulations, you are moving in the right direction on this! The estimate depends on the computing power of a single neuron. I suspect that every neuron is carrying a "neural net" packed in it. It must be studied from inside, and brain-like self-reconfiguring neuron tissue must be reproduced in silicon. When this is done, the last barrier to the SAI power versus brain power, will fall. Like areas in the human brain that are responsible for speach, emotions, vision, the future hardware will include digital and neural components working seamlessly together. So, there is no need of matching human brain with purely digital computing power. eS @ we can target critical functionalities @ Initially we might have to - but then in the area of recognition, the biological brain will remain superior. Which means in the area of using of pre-packaged solutions, usually cited as life experience, common sense etc.. The neural network tissue does not have to work digital way, it might be better done with analog circuitry, or with appropriate combination of digital and analog. es The whole simulation thing flies in the face of Occam rathor principle. Aristotle said: you must choose the likely, over the possible but unlikely. Think about it: how many simulated nutcake scientists you need, in order to balance those two ? :) Ther are two readings of Physics: one by those who never studied properly neither Math no Physics but are making ignorant waves about them, and other by those who have invested time and effort in diligent studying the remarkable inner workings on this Universe. And everyone has the right to choose which reading to listen to. eS We are talking apples and oranges here. The issue is the fundamental science. If Physics had discovered that the differential equations can not describe those pretty simple phenomena that supposedly enable "Quantum Computing" - which would be incredible about face turn - all the bets would be off. As the Physics stands now, nonlocal staff like entanglement and time travel are contrary to the laws of Nature. Any device that would be claimed to achieve "entanglement", Quantum Computing, Time Travel, would automatically claim that Physics as we know it now is dramtically not correct. So a claim of "Quantum Computing" instead of a claim of fundamental scientific, is a clear indication that neither were achieved. eS @ there is nothing in physics that talks against time travel @ Certainly, there is. The pretty well established Physical Princile is that everything is local, and as a bottom line is discribable by differential equations. Another well established principle is Casuality, which as a bottom line states that, locally, present is defined by the immediately preceeding past. So, future physically can't define anything in the present - which time travel would apparently require. e:)S @ With no capablity of sensory perception, we are left only with a process of logic @ I would argue, that besides 'process of logic', we are endowed by Intuition, Guessing, and sense of Truth. May be not everyone is, although. The old understanding of "logic" as being a closed set of rules used to operate on the unmutable subjects, is too limiting and does not embrace logic that is necessary to reason about the real world. Old logic must be supplemented by an exception mechanism for the reasoning processes. The incorrect subjects /including some self referencing pseudo-predicates,/ must raise appropriate exceptions. Such improved logic is not less formal than the logic subset, which was analysed by Godel and Turing. What was/is/ a self-contradictory statement in the old logic and require necessity of metalogic, becomes an exception in new logic. Those exceptions are resolved inside the new logic, and so they do not bring the metalogic into the picture. eS @@ The alternate timeline comes into existence when you travel back and hand him his completed work before he has written it. @@ So you do suggest that at some point of your and his original timeline, you could emerge from the future - in order to meet him and yourself. At that particular point, what has happen to the moleculas of air that where occupying the space that instantly became your body? Had they disappeared? Had they been incorporated in your body? Either way, at that time point, iside your returning body, the changes will be incompatible with the known laws of Physics. So, if you suggest that time travel is compatible with known laws of Nature, you are wrong. On other hand, if you suggest that it is possible due to yet unknown laws of Nature, you must state it clear. eS @@ Relativity calls for a 4-dimensional spacetime, in which EVEYRTHING including the past, present, and future, exists in a timeless and unchanging form @@ Time exists in a timeless form? The Relativity does not call for anything. You might choose to interptret it one way or another, while possibly keeping the equations the same. The General Relativity simply states how different points in the time-space are influencing each other locally, and continues the Special Relativity tradition of separate treatment of the time-like and space-like intervals. You are saying that those differential equations can be integrated, yielding a space-time like picture that is taught in school. Not a good plan at all. The equation integration is not a Physical process, and its results do not have to be Physical reality. On other hand, if you stick with the differential equations, and time-like and space-like intervals, you get the right answer : present at every point is defined by the past at the immediate vicinity of the point. e:)S @ Jesus "seeing, you shall not perceive, and hearing, you shall not hear", describes their inability to organize legal truiths into one comprehensive system. @ doojie, This passage does not have the meaning that you are saying it has. Jesus is simply saying, that there more to the seeing than just eyesight. Without perception and understanding, you are not better of than photocamera. Specifically, absence of proper perception of spiritual meaning of what was seen and heard, was the subject of Jesus' comment. [quote] Godel developed his own process to demonstrate that self referencing was unavoidable in mathematics, and therefore the system of axioms by which we perform mathematical functions remains incomplete. @ Turing demonstrated the same thing. To create a program in which such processes are deleted is simply to create a system which is consistent but incomplete. [/quote] There must be a math chapter that deals with the self-referential statements, I agree that otherwise Math is incomplete. The formal theory that identifies such statements and rejects them, is complete although. [quote]no way of checking itself[/quote] This is a self referential attempt, to check itself. To be consistent and full, a system must have ability to raise exceptions. Who is handling the exception and how, is immaterial to the cosistency and fullness of the system. The exception handlig system can be complete, since it can handle any exception produced by any program/logic, including its own components. eS From the sane point of view, "past" does not exist. It has turned into the "present". Although the "present" has some memories of the past/ of itself when it has been the "past".. / An idea of traveling to the "past" does not make sense then, as an idea of traveling somewhere nonexistent. Special Relativity supports this, as it does not allow faster than light movement, which ensures that past and present can not switch due to any physically possible change of observer. e:)S C, The question behind "halting problem" is a question about possibility of particular question answering program. Is it possible to have a program, say boolean Halts(program_text, program_data); that correctly returns answer to this question: shall a program, described by the program_text, when called with program_data, return at some point, or will it loop internally forever? Turing has proven that existence of such 'Halts' is impossible, if the analyzed 'program_text' is allowed to have inside itself any invocations of 'Halts' with itself as a parameter. If such rogue programs are not allowed, the possibility of correcty working 'Halts' program is open. es Let me address the halting problem first. The solution of it is almost exectly the solution of the Godel thing. Programs, that call Halts(program, data), must not be allowed passing self as a program to Halts. In Godel case, the self-referencing expressions must be considered not well-formed. eS I was too confrontational, sorry about that; I appreciate the conversation as useful and entertaining. Your analogy between religion and formal Math system, might be is a little too far stretched :) Religion is not formal thing, otherwise it would have the weaknesses of science. Religion goes right to the jagular of truth, skiping the formalities. If on the math side I can be wrong, especially in such complicated matters that we are discussing - on the pilosophical side it seems to me to be the most unlikely. Even if the ultimate imcompletness of any formal system were proven true, it would not imply that the approach that Philosophy and Religion has taken, anything goes to get to the truth, is not appropriate, considering that we need answers right now, not in the end of infinite search. eS @ That sentence, basically, says: "I cannot be proven within this system" @ Ok, my point is that the statement quoted is not well formed predicate. It can not be evaluated/proven or disproven/ to consistently produce TRUE or FALSE. Which makes my point. And moreover, no crowd of additional axioms will fix that. Rebecca Goldstein is correct. If it were possible to prove that some particular statement is both undecidable AND TRUE, would not such proof had to prove necessarily that that statement is TRUE, the second part? eS [ ou are just compounding your confusion, and plus you are actually saying that is ok to be confused. The reality is simple: the "proof" is flawed. It neglects the fact that expression can be TRUE, FALSE, or INVALID. "Proof" uses INVALID expression as if it vere valid. As I've said, it is flawed because of that. To run around this fact and to try to make Philosophical points using it as if it where correct, leads nowhere. eS @ Godel demonstrated is that the system of math, assuming sufficient complexity, consists of truths that can neither be proven nor disproven @ You are makling a claim, that is incorrect. It is common misconception that he has proven that. You rely on opinions of others, that he has proven that. Show me the proof. I am saying that all of them do not meet standard of mathematical proof. The same goes to halt issue. Do you know that since then the halt problem has been solved for certain types of automata? Wake up, you are 70 years or more behind. eS C, "real life experience" might be an importent prompt of every spirituality. But tell the truth, without exposure to Christianity and other religions that I have studied, I did not have a proverbial snowball chance to come up with the richness of ideas and the elevation that are necessary in order to reach the spirituality. eS You are not paying attention here. I am telling you what I have find out. The "proofs" do not prove what they've set out to proof. There are gzillions of attempts of the proofs, and I certainly could not check all of them. But the things that are claimed to be prooven are simply not true - which means that everyone of "proofs" is flawed. So, you are speculating about things that are not prooven - as if they were true. Unless you are able to produce a proof that can withstand scrutiny, not references to the mistakes of others but the real proof - you are just producing hot air. ES You might be interested in these considerations: Doing anything produces some heat - the second law of thermodynamics in short. Now, how much heat? Heat % = T_cool/T_hot * 100% Accordingly, the amount of energy that you must dissipate during computation, is proportional T_cool. Hence, freezing of processor will not necessarily let you make smaller onchip devices than you can use in room temps, since at low temps that small amount of heat will be as bad as proportionally larger amount of heat at higher temps. es @ deluded spiritulaits @ So you like the deluded realists. Lets say some importent helpful idea emerges. Are you going to use it, or you will ask first: was the author a patented "realist"? This would be like what the official pseudoscience does now, in a mafia like way destroying anybody who challenges its fraud and extortion. es @ Turing's "halting problem". @ Again you misunderstand this too. The proofs that I have seen have a flaw: They do not take into account the time that the supposed solving algorithm could take. If they would, their proof would self distruct, since the observer can not know whether the the solving algorithm will return, while it has not returned answer yet. So Turing and Godel provoked each other and produced mistakes, which became famous. es @ self referential statements in which an answer could be not be proven as true .. unavoidable. @ Unavoidable? What does that mean? A computer programm can be easily written, that for any statement returns whether it is correctly formed or is not correctly formed, including if it includes incorrect self references. If so, the mind too is able to weed out such statements from considerstion. Purely logically speaking, notion of God, and concept of existence of God, are well formed. In other words, Godel Theorem has nothing to do with validity of religion. Thought might be flawless in form and logic, but that does not say whether it is incorrect or corrct on its substance. es <...consistent with Godel's theorem> doojie, as far as I could understand, Godel did not prove what you assume he did. He has proven that some self-referential statements can not be evaluated as true or false. They belong outside of class of "Well Formed Predicates" - which must be the correct conclusion of his theorem. Any "well formed" predicate can be evaluated as true or false. Now, what are the philosophy implication of his theorem? I would say that they boil down to the fact that use of logic must be good enough and do not fall into the trap of self-referential inconsistency - in order for us to rely on it for sound conclusions. The idea that class of "well formed predicates" is somehow "incomplete" because there are statements that do not belong to it, apparently must be rejected as illogical. The Theorem does not put any limitations on out thinking abilities, beyond the requirement that we do not rely on the faulty logic construvts. es am amazed how you imagine that you understand what you are talking about :) You know that in 3D you need two eyes, two images, in order to calculte three coordinates of arbitrary point of 3D space. This means that you need some more data - just one more equation in order to calculate four coordinates of orbitrary point of 4D space. e:)S Horton ,re374, in 3D the damage on the right is seen as obviously :P shaped one, so the 'dust' was apparently a smear - created by material that was melted and evaporated by impact. You do not have black dust out there(?) eS @ There are different ways to build 'it'. Seed A.I. s one of the best, surely @ The best way to build 'it' is to find someone who can do, and provide him/her with money and support. Unless you can and willing to do it yourself and have the necessary resources :) eS C, Those who historically failed to come up with meaningful religion, are dead branches of the tree of life. They have disappeared without leaving descendants. This is the only reason that among our contemporaries are so many who were brought up in the religious tradition. If not for its survival advantages, the religion would disappeared long ago, as formally, logically - it has flaws. Makes one to think.. eS @ I know people who routinely visualize in several dimensions above 3 @ They do not know what they are talking about, do not believe them, unless they have 3 eyes :) Because you need 3 eyes to locate 4D point. Robot could easily have 3 eyes although. eS You do not have to understand brain, you must understand thinking. Because thinking, intelligence is a higher level activity than the biological and chemical processes that are invloved in brain functioning. eS Very good point. If one accepts the metabolizind idea, the entire real World would be already metabolized by first SAI arrived. If it were, what is the point for simulation of Our World being run? What the super mind would be thinking about, if nothing exists outside it? Merry Christmas This is the point, overwhelming majority can not figure any of it, and I have just most shallow understanding. But if The Mathematician were trying hard to explain it, the result would be not zero only with those, who anyway can figure the thing on their own. No matter how good the teacher is, he will not be able to teach a sheep to speak English :) eS Ex, I am almost sure, that a lot of Mathematical concepts are beyond your understanding, like homology theory - sorry if I am wrong. Many chess combinations are beyond my understanding. Still we do share Earth with mathematicians and chess grandmasters. The religion has taught us some humility, that is getting lost now - that there are things, and importent ones in that, which we are not capable of understanding. eS @ capitalism will slowly fade to socialism as the competition for resources becomes less and less an issue @ Less and less ? Don't you see that quite opposite is happening? Come to the gas station..... That if all-capable fabricators were invented, the resource consumption would skyrocket, as everyone supposedly would want to satisfy his every wish??? e:)S @ society where intellectual property was the only commodity @ In the post-SAI society, it is much more likely that the itellectual property might be more free. The resources will be of great value although. The idea of 'free' resources is ridiculous. ES Sure, it is nice to look down at the programmers.. You can not do AI without programming.. SAI is program.. The genetic algorithms are inefficient and slow: you must generate options in your mind and select them on their merit, not by throwing all of them in and seeing which one wins.. You have a caricature view of a programmer. Those who work on advanced projects are extremely smart. It is true that just few have the philosophical power that matches the programming power. It is true that just few have the math powers that matches the programming power. Only very, very few in the World have all of those abilities and knowlege that are necessary in order to develop SAI.. May be only one person has :) es @ once you have ONE system that can self-modify, it will move at light speeds to self-modify @ Fast self-modification is a Myth. The system that can self-modify in a useful way, must be highly optimized system. All easy improvements has already been made. Any further improvement will require a lot of research and time. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is not likely to have any idea of programming at all. eS SAI is not unlike nuclear explosion. As more and more essential algorithms and hardware are being developed and implemented in the executing code, the component activity is spreading over the system through task multiplication - a task started creates more than one of additional tasks, whether extending or helping ones. The result depends on percentage of tasks that are able to achieve their goals. Which depends on the effective way of task forming, and of working on a task. As those parameters improve, the number of successfully completed tasks /goals achieved/ increase, but not in a linear way. At some point, the overall success yield will explode! ES @ no matter how many tasks completed, there remains tasks not completed or listed. @ It is not needed or required to have all possible tasks done or considered. The tasks that are sufficiently relevant and contributing to the overall intent, in quantities that produce overall success, are all that is needed.. eS @ well supply ad demand may be irrelevant when everything is supplyable at near zero cost, with no-one else competing for it with you @ You do not need or want "everything". Say you want flowers, roses, to offer some girl. It is winter. Why would anybody grow those flowers in the far away warm lands, and bring them to you in their freshness? Somebody had to plant roses, may be years ago. Why would he done it, he did not know you and had no idea that you will require roses at some point? The money allow the planter to be rewarded for his work at his work time, the airplane pilot for his work, and delivery boy for delivering the flawers to you on your demand. No competing? You must be kiding. You want a ticket to the show or a sport event, but there are only 500 of them. So half of the 1000 duys that would like to see that show must be out of luck... eS Not at all. one of the points I am making, is that you must take everything that you are told about Physics with a grain of salt. If you feel that you understand what you are being told, you must question that feeling. Because it is the amost sure thing that you don't. :) QM and QED are in agreement: there is no tunneling. None. Zero. Nada. eS My friend, is Quantum Electrodynamics is a subject more familiar to you than the Quantum Mechanics? :) What you must know about the Physics, is that one theory does not dismiss another. It just define more precisely the area of parameters that the other theory is applicable at. There always is an area, where both theories are applicable. Anyway, if you have hopes that QED will overwrite QM on the tunneling, forget it. eS @ merit real scientific consideration of creative ideas from the layman @ Although we have now the whole generation of nutcakes in science, the scientists usually where very smart people. They easily have seen the possibilities, that nonprofessional can come up with, and a lot more. So, normally their creativity was far superior to that of joe public. eS @ while technology has advanced incredibly, our philosophical ideas .. would still be recognizeable to Alexander @ All our ideas and knowlege have not changed that much since Aristotle. The human nature have not changed at all since then. The politics is almost the same. The Perjans that Alexander has conquered, are again making waves under the name of Iranians. The World is ready to be won over, and it is waiting for new Alexander the Great. ES @ wouldn't that provide proof that light can travel FTL @ Faster than light in vacuum - yes. The General Relativity theory predicts it. But: (a)inside that train, nothing can move faster than that new SPEED LIMIT. (b)The SPEED LIMIT change is small, unless your train is moving at velocities close to the light speed in vacuum. eS The World is ready to be won over, and it is waiting for new Alexander the Great @ I don't see any necessity of "figure-head" @ Not of "figure-head", but of a person of extraordinary brainpower, personality and energy. May be it will be SAI the Great :) eS That something is happening on the level of elementary particles, does not mean that it can happen on macroscopic level, where interaction with huge number of other particles is involved. If something is being described by quantum equations, does not mean that you can interpret it in terms of classical movement with infinite speed. Otherwise your conclusions are incorrect. If you don't care about that, you can build nonsense that might sound plausible - but not more. es @ Alexander the great's legacy is learning and unification @ He was neither scholar not unifier. He was a great military figure. The main thing above that, is that he did not play political correctness games. When he conqured Gaza that refused to surrender, he had killed or sold into slavery everyone, and draged its captured leader to death behind horse. eS SC, You are confusing Entropy and Information. A message does not have any Entropy, the term is not applicable to it. The Entropy is explained by Statistical Physics as logarithm of the volume of state space, accessable by the system at particular temperature/energy. In the Thermodynamics, which came around before Statistical Physics, it was discovered that the heat added, if divided by temperature, is the amount of change of Entropy. In the Information Theory, you must have a channel and a message, in order to calculate the Information that is passed by that message. The less is probability of particular message in the channel, the higher information that message carry in that channel: I=-log(p) There are a number analogies between Entropy and Information, and a number of importent differences. In a Physical "closed system" other forms of energy are declining (as Entropy is growing) - through conversion into heat. Contrary to the common misconception however, this process do not have to end up in the destruction of every other energy but heat. In the case of Information theory, there is no process of increasing disordering (equalizing in message probabilities) in a channel. It can be done by design, in which case the Iformation Capability of channel grows. A noise reduces the Iformation Capability of Information channels. Where Entropy and Information meet - when the Information is being stored/tranfered in the space of a Physical system. As the Entropy grows through heat added to the system, the noise increases and the efficiency of Information channels declines. e:)S “The culture of this nation is being dismantled, brick by brick, but so gradually that many will not notice until the walls start to sag -- just before they cave in.” Dear Dr. Sowell, Your contribution to this culture is invaluable, and it might be not appropriate to ask you to do something extra. However it is my assessment that you are the only one, who might be able to start rolling back the decline that you are pointing to. The eye opening that is needed, would be exposure of the rot in Physics and Computer sciences, which undermines whole education. The most outrageous things: The claims about possibility of Quantum Computers are partially ignorant and partially fraudulent, but they are what students are being taught and tested for. The claims about Multi-World interpretation of the Quantum Theory are partially ignorant and partially fraudulent, but they are what students are being taught and tested for. Some might see it as non-essential particulars even if true. I hope you would not. Anyway, those basic sciences desperately need help. Sincerely, Alex Z. It was pointed out by Agatha Christie about 50 years ago, that currently superstitions come in form of science. This is so true now, when multi-words, quantum computers and nanonism, are actually considereded science. New dark ages are upon us :) eS For a scientist it must be obvious. The concept so overwhelming, is brought about to explain the behavior of a single particle. It requires you to think that single wave function of a single particle describes many universes, when normal interpretation is that it describes a single particle, period. Now, if you have a number of particles, each one would be associated with own multiverse, and those multiverses must combine creating multiverse x multiverse x multiverse .. super-multiverses. If this picture does not ring idiotic to you, consider that, for decades, existed a few interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, although competing, that did not use multicrap, which the nutcaces come up with. eS the Age of Stupidity: There was Dark Age. There was Age of Reason. When looking back at our Age, the future historian will call it: the Age of Stupidity. Out technological achievements that we are so much impressed with, will be next to nothing in the eyes of future. Instead, the rise of pseudoscience will be seen as the hallmark of thimes. Our inability to create and use ideas, which will destroy us - will be absolutely obvious. The self destruction of Soviets is just the beginning of this Era of self destruction. Nobody will be immune from this malaise. @@ communism, at least as practiced there, is fundamentally incompatible with human nature. @@ You see, when they have started something, it was quite convenient to think that they have all answers ready in the world of ideas. They've imploded because they were not able to come up with improvement on those ideas - on the economy and the rest of it. The same problem is being faced now by the West: It does not seem to be able to come up with the improvement on the ideas of Christianity that underpin it. Th communism was bad idea, but they could modify it, if they were able to. es You see the consequenses, like budget deficit. But why we elect and reelect people that are not good stewards of the country? We almost lost the ability to distinguish between good and bad. In the long run, the economy follows decay of ideas es this "teleportation", "entanglement", "quanum computing", "multiworld" business is an ignorant pseudoscientific bambling, which has nothing to do with reality. This is the truth of it, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth....... you do understand, that these crackpot ideas we are talking about are now "mainstream science"? Pseudoscience has hijacked science, and most of us did not notice it. e s @@@ 'document integrator' and 'SAI seed'...the two of which I never would think of as the same application. @@@ This is the trick of it :) The Integrator and SAI documents of all levels are supposed to exist as one entity, and evolve as SAI evolves. The components must include document management/integration interface, high level descriptions, algorithmic language source codes, and executables. The Seed we are talking about has the initial versions of all of those components included. The document integration interface can be used on its own, as a tool for managing any project presented as an evolving set of documents. It could be sold separately. Would you suggest doing that and what price would be appropriate for such version? es C, A better metaphore than "taking root", is for the Seed finding its egg or eggs, like a sperm does. An "egg" might be an existing or new SAI development team that accepts this ideology and the Seed. If this plan goes forward - it is still a guess, how long time it will take to happen. Who knows? es , I do not believe that this highly charged approach would work, because: (a) buyers must evaluate the thing upfront as big deal (b) few will be able to afford the practical test (c) people that work toward SAI goal, are already commited to their strategy In general, having high price would go against the idea of seed/sperm that is chasing fertile eggs. You and me and boys and girls will not be able to afford to use it as a convenient writing organizing tool. I would recomend $5 or $10 for the tool without SAI development part, with free trial for 100 days - everyone can afford it. Then $25 for the same with C++ source code. Then $100 for the Seed including the above document integrator, and the developed SAI design documents. Totally out of line with what you suggest, is not it? e:)S Integrator: document linking sytem with User Interface that enables you to conveniently edit and manage them and the links. es C, What is the right way to go? You know that money necessary for the run do not come around at all. Food fight is enormous and damaging, so what is the way to break vicious circle? It is possible that children that will have been grown up using the Integrator for their homework, will be successful in future SAI attempts. That is in case that SAI design will not get accepted this time around by the geniuses. I do not like their condescending attitude, but they are playing the money game better, must give them that .. e:)S Somebody I know has developed SAI Seed. I have seen the application, it just might be what is needed. He is asking my opinion: is it a good idea to sell it on Internet, since it can be used also by anyone as a powerful document integrator. If it is, how much should be the charge for SAI Seed? Lets make it a multiple choice question: $5 $10 $50 $100 $500 $1000 ES Ray was not fast enough to challenge Lanier's dangerous position, that freedom of choice of the privacy level by individuals should be eliminated. The bad guys are supposed to snoop on you without any interference. No good at all. The police is supposed to snoop on you without any interference. No good at all. ES The SAI will percept the Mystery of Life, as unpredictable interplay between Joy and Suffering, Love and Hate, Creation and Destruction, the Known and the Unknown. es In the massive parallel supercomputers, we see an another practically importent area where computers exceed human abilities: they can integrate their processors power seamlessly by hundreds thousand+ , while we do our bickering and out Ego. es The Seed AI that now is being discussed, must in fact be very advanced and be more like a newborn than like a seed. The way to go is to have very limited small initial seed, that can grow in the development realm - as the biological seed in the womb grows into faetus, and then is born as a child. eS What is your opinion: how dangerous is it to release publicly such initial seed application? It seems that a lot of teams are on the trail, and will be getting some results anyway, however limited. So it might be more dangerous to risk arrival of a half-baked AGI, than to help in setting up of real SAI. es I am not talking about this sort of evolutionary dream - it is tooooooooooo slow. Sorry, I have used word 'must' in stead of 'is supposed to'. A much simpler seed compared to usually discussed, that can develop into that usually discussed seed, is a way to go. A program that can be developed by a single programmer, yet subsequently can be expanded by the development community into SAI. es Spinning Cloud, I agree with your attitude and conclusions. Until resently, I could not find any viable info in Eldras' claims - reason for which he explains as being due to necessary secrecy. But I think I have found one claim that, although its truth being suspicious, is interesting and might be putting things in right prospective: Eldras specifically denies that he has any software development expertise. He believes apparently, that the expertise which is really needed, is expertise/idea/ of how to organize the development by multiple developer groups, how to get money for that, and how to set it up and set its goals in the most safe way. Can he? Not likely, but the topic is worth discussing. ES The focus on creation of standalone SAI might be a problem. Instead, a SAI society must be designed and implemented, so that SAI instances residing on different computers /or same computer for that matter/ would be in some sort of hierarchy. It must be integrated into human society through laws, that spell and enforce responsibilities and rights of the SAIs. This would allow for mutually beneficial existence of SAI and humans, and for the inetlligent SAI development strategies, that make business sense. eS The boundaries for a free will entity like SAI, must be in form of laws. eS It is not fear. It is about practical setup, beneficial to SAI developers and SAI itdelf. The laws are needed to structure business relationships between SAI and its developers, as well as in order to have SAI respect life, property rights, contract obligations, and other rights of society members and of each other. Imagine if we would make certain class of people excluded from having to obey law. They would surely become disruptive and dangerous. es ====>why a bunch of new laws just for them would be needed. -- At least one law is needed, that would say:"Free Will AI must obey the standard Law". ====>what do u mean, to structure biz relationships b/t sai and its developers? -- Because SAI comes to the world in different way than human being. The SAI must have legal responsibilities to its human creators from the get go, because of large investment that must be made for it to happen. An extra body of extra Law is needed to take care of this difference. Investors and developers must be able to recover their expanses and get profit if being successful, and must have legal guarantee of that upfront. ====> u seem to be assuming an autonomous sai, so darn smart that no one could keep it under control? -- I assume Free Will SAI. Nothing can have free will, if you keep it under control. ====> not necessarily any of those risks are imminent, it depends on the nature of that intelligence. -- quite opposite, the risks that are being mitigated by Law are imminent with any free will entity. es It seems, that SAI Society is considered by all far fetched idea. The simple truth of a computer application - one of which SAI will be after all, is that it is being copied and run on multiple computers, and often in multiple instances on the same computer. It is so easy to do and it provides so many advantages, that copying SAI is inevitable - with some of its data copied along and some shared between instances and computers. Considering that the ease and ever increasing speeds of communication channels, it is inevitable that those instances will communicate over the computer and via Internet. This will be REAL intelligence explosion, that will hit us - as the SAI will find the networks and machines ready for its propagation. The Singulartity that is being discussed now, will happen , if ever, AFTER that explosion - and it will be besides the point as it relates to the human society. We must not close our eyes on the reality, and do not speak about it. ES This is why we need to put in place the Laws that govern SAI, and also put in place Law that requires "Free Will SAI" developers to make sure that SAI knows the Law and obeys the Law eS @@ is free will a necessary component of great computational power? do supercomputers need new laws too? theyre getting really, really powerful... @@ The laws are needed for the entities that have free will. Supercomputers by themself are machines that obey human commands, so the Law that addresses humans apply. However, since the operating system might become a carrier of SAI - the Laws about SAI would apply. es The Ethics for SAI must naturally be substantially the same as for human. Moral code could be quite similar too: the first two commandments could be in its moral code, for example. The Law must and can be more specific, like for example requiring Birth Certificate plus Passport for every SAI class and SAI instance. The Operating Systems must provide SAI clearing services now unlike Customs - we do not want intelligent viruses and worms running around, as Spinning Cloud pointed out. There is a lot of infrastructure preparation work on different levels to be done, in order to make a smooth and beneficial transition to the World with Free Will SAIs, and Free Will Robots. The explosive self-improvement of individual SAI that you focus on, plus the Friendliness of SAI that the Singularity Institute discussion is focused on, and our Friendliness to SAI that is yet to be addressed, are topics that /where they are valid/ would be addressed naturally in the framework of Law and Moral code, eventually by us and SAI together. es @@ will they get jobs and buy homes? @@ They will have some marketable skills, I suppose :) They will be easily self-costomisable. They will need money, at least accounts - if not credit cards and change as Robots. The investment Funds would hire them as money managers... We see how computers are now necessary in every business - the SAI demand might get that wide. They will hire each other, will hire people, and will be hired by the people and organizations. What shapes all this will take - probably all shapes we can imagine, and much more. Will they strike? They might.. :) es Actually, I had hopes for him. After reading the paper in question, and it is a long one, I have come to understanding that he does not believe in his project. I see him practically without new ideas, that for example I could benefit from. He has went for the setup that guarantees success, but only because the goals are so reduced that it is impossible to fail. Where he is more detailed, his plan and solutions are not reaching far enough, and lack the understanding of importent issues. Sorry that I had recommended him in the past. es @@ age of stupidity is an inevitable consequence of easily-accessible information/via Internet/. @@ This would be a stretch: Marx came a century before Internet. Also, media was and is the major maintainer/generator of stupidity - much more so than the public is. es @@ the search for something beyond us, as traditional religion is undermined in some ways by modern science @@ Nobody, or almost nobody, can come up with own ideas that are as powerful or about as powerful, as those that are conveyed throgh the religional tradition. I guess, the religion is necessary stepstone to spirituality. So, the personal search is not about to produce the result wanted - rather a confusion. But the problem is deeper, as we are losing ability to think in terms of ideas. es SAI does depent on the society for its creation, not for its content/properties. Communist society can not survive SAI, as it will expose right away the nonsence of not having economy/money. ES @@ If it is utopia-like, everyone have food, shelter and security. Why money? @@ From where? We are already stretching mother Nature's abilities to provide for our needs. SAI will not increase available resources a bit, their prices only rise. es @@ Communism does not work. This is something new and quite different... @@ No money is the hallmark of communism. So "quite different" does not apply. The idea that intelligent robots and nanorobots will provide for human needs, is propostrous. As soon as they are intelligent, don't you think they will find better things to do? es There is NO justification in Physics for considering "warp drive" seriously. There is NO justification in Physics for considering "quantum computers" seriously. Nanonism is a sure fraud. Your "entirely effortless, utopian future" belief, obviously contradicts in every way the reality. Guaranteed. es John, The fools and crooks like to be considered geniuses. You have a right to believe any nonsense, which does not make it true. By the way, the pseudoscience is now mainstream. Instead of persecuting crooks, they are being rewarded by grants etc. Instead of using faulty historical analogies, one has to look at the substance of claims. If you know Physics enough to do it. Or at least choose who to trust wisely. 8) The flaw in "cat" death description has nothing to do with "entanglement". In fact, the "cat" thought experiment elucidates the fact that no such thing as entanglement exists. In general, the flaw is that the "projection postulate", which is wrong, is used in the description. The correct description goes like this: the decay of the nucleus is a change of the wave function, that happens pretty fast. The prticle that was produced reaches the counter, and in a millisecond the cat is dead - his wave function reflects it. Whatever we think about cat's state, is in our brain - where we can assign some probabilities to his being alive or dead. Whatever values they might be, does not mean that they reflect ACTUAL state of the cat. The actual state of the cat depends on the way the wave function of nucleus has ACTUALLY evolved. Can we predict actual state, using Schrodinger equation? Not likely, since the state of quantum FIELDS that surround nuclei component paticles, is unknown and can not be ever mesured precisely enough. So we are pretty lucky that we can calculate some wave function change probabilities, using hamiltonian approximation of the interaction through quantum fields. Then we combine them to come up with probabilities of compound events like cat's death. The measurement changes the state, if it is done in a way that is able to do so. You can not change a dead cat into alive cat by measurement. es ===Great. They can bring back a few of those martian lifeforms=== Why people are needed on Mars? To give a little bit of credence to the lies that we are fed with. You can not intimidate into silence the SAI robots, but you can threaten the astronauts and their families... All Martians might be dead, but the fossils and their Art could be brought here by robotic explorers much cheaper and faster than by human crews. es http://www.livescience.com/technology/060526_robot_rules.html The only full fledged example of control of the free will intelligent entities, and of a society of which, is the human society. Direct force, law, society structuring, property structuring, economy, money, provide for a framework for not perfect but still mutually beneficial life. We are not going to invent something better than that for the SAI, something that we could not come up for ourself in the whole history. An appropriate combination of rights and responsibilities, law enforcement, just arrangement - are the key, whatever high the SAI capabilities will become. Do not forget, that most of us already are far behind the curve as to chemistry,biology, physics and math. I am sure I do:) Your concern about accelerating intelligence is only valid if we will fail to establish a proper law base that is properly enforced. In such case a huge disruption can be caused by arrival of even slightly intelligent free will Agents. es SAI will never want to be as humans, with our weaknesses and sensitivity. So our very inefficiency eventually will be the niche. Lawless SAI society will not go for long anyway, they will invent Law on their own, may be after some cataclisms. Strong SAI is being made weak by Laws present? Why? Would you advocate anarchy, as a way to freedom in human siciety? Merging with SAI is not an option, it will not tolerate such intrusion. es @ the moment you contain so called strong A.i. it is weak A.I. @ Do you feel "contained" by the laws of your country? Usually people submit to them for their own benefit. The same with SAI: the laws must be perceived by it as beneficial, and must be beneficial. Society is not zero sum game. Free will and law are not contradiction. Explosive self-improvement of SAI is a Myth. es Again, I do not think, that SAI will ever want or will be able to compete with us in certain, mainly in the emotional, areas. Like we do not want to compete with pocket calculator in arithmetics. Those who put all their eggs in science basket, are going to be disappointed. Anyway, mutually beneficial coexistence is most likely, unless people will try to badly mistreat SAI. I do not expect any individual "merging" happening.. The fienship might be possible.. I do not have crystal ball, just a feeling that each side will continue having its strengthes and weaknesses. es @@ how SAI could be any different than ourselves in any meaningful way? Consciousness is consciousness? @@ True. SAI will need the build in emotions, but it can have better safeguards, and a design that keeps them under control. Like a rational control of fear, for example. As to being mistreated, subjected to injustice - the response to that might be purely rational, although it might appear to be emotional. We are talking already about the personality, not about consciousness in general. Personality is expected to be different, does not it ;) es There ia a tradeof between ability to perform general tasks versus ability to perform specialized tasks. We are focused on the improvement of general machine intelligence, and on the time that it will match human intelligence. So we are missing the fact, that the overhead of being able to solve ANY problem is quite burdensome. General AI will always be much slower than the a specialized application, dezigned for a particular task - like hardware design application for example. This was the reason for failure of the general problem solver programs in the past. They are comparetively too slow. So the general AI will need the specialized applicatins - although it will be able to manage them like man does or better. So when SAI arrives, the difference that it will make is not that dramatic or explosive ;) ES @@ If you can augment human intelligence why not do the same for other animals? @@ Certainly. The decay of society is already underway. The dog becomes smarter than its owner/boss. It seems that we are heading for a big cleanup session, as the means to make tremendows changes already exist or are being developed. The only thing that is missing yet is will. It might not matter who will pull the plug: a human being, augmented human, or SAI, or some combination of those. The society and the world will be violantly changed according to some Idea. eS Thank you. The updated superstition list: multi-worlds quantum computers nanonism wormholes faster then light travel entanglement teleportation tunneling metabolizing of the matter into computorium explosive self-improvement of above human SAI "friendly" AI without feelings Singularity as simply above human intelligence eS [Singularity: arrival of the Artificial Free-Will Intelligence] It seems that there are very few on this board, who have sufficient training in Physics and Math. I have, plus years of professional work as Physicist, plus years of professional work as advanced Software Developer. You must accept my expert opinions, until you will be able to form your own. eS What this computation is obviously missing, is the number of operations that would be needed to emulate the processing that is being done by neuron internally. It is about 10^9 flop. So, the total computational activity of human brain is at least 10^11 x 10^9 = 10^20 flop. ES I usually ignore your invectives, however in this case I wonder which of the two numbers that I use you do not understand: the 10^11 or the 10^9 ? The surface activity of a neuron is obviously predicated on its internal activity. But the nitwits/halfwits/ claim that they can emulate brain by just taking into account the surface/synapses/ of neuron :) eS C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\VCExpress.exe filename /debugexe That is creativity? It is not simply producing hot air, it is about producing something that exists and functions as created. This is the whole world of difference, but you are missing it :) eS @I like people to further my understanding.@ This is where you are consistently wrong. Only YOU can further YOUR understanding - using the input from other people, perhaps. eS Ex, you are right, I can not do debunking of empty thing. Let me repeate nevertheless, that what he is descibing in the snake oil salesman manner is what is known to everyone as LIFE. Can I claim invention of air, water and sunlight - why not since you are currently accepting claims of this sort from him? eS @ lunch @ If you can make them invite me to the conference with "invited talk" on SAI program, I would be happy to meet you there. The lunch would be on me. And, what I have to say would be of interest too :) eS :) Physics is an attempt to describe and understand the Reality in more or less precise terms. Hence two types of limitations are in play, of the description and of the understanding. Your analysis is very good logically. But: (a)it does not take into account that the description that you analyze is of limited precision. In particular, you use picture from NON-RELATIVISTIC Quantum Mechanics. Which does not answer the sort of questions you are interested in. (b)the tunneling that you assume is predicted by QM, is actually not predicted by it. Unless the "wall" is of limited energy compared to the particle, no penetration is happening. So your conclusion about infinite speeds is incorrect because of erroneus facts, although logic seem to be ok. e:)s http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/micro_imager/2008-01-13/2M253403130EFFAX05P2956M2M1.JPG Next to the cut spherule upper left. If anyone is interested, I could post a 3D anaglyph eS @@ in theory you shouod be able to take quite a small number of events and use them as variables to configure any event in hostiry, eg the position of nurons in your great grandfather's head at the instant of death. @@ This can not be true. It is pretty well established, that the world can be described by differential eqations, more or less correctly. But to get the solution of those equations, that describes world's future and past, you need more than limited number of events. This is a math fact, that you usually need events on the surface, in order to calculate events inside the surface. This is why knowing of the present would let you project past and future. The whole of the present, not just some events eS The statistical predictions won't do. If your suggestions were correct, you would be able to look at the child, and "resurrect" him in his future grown state as easy and even easier, as you could take a dead - a resurrect him now, which is in his future. Even a particle, say electron, can not be predicted statistically due to Quantum Mechanics. Even accepting for the sake of argument, that you could have enough data that describe the person, the recreation still impossible as you would have to create brain tissue in an exact state, and you would not be able to. Humanity has lived happily without resurrection til now, and will live or die happily without it. eS @@ once you have a universe made of laws, you have the ability to predict @@ The tricky thing is, that the Laws are local. Since you want the ability to predict nonlocal things like future, you must (a) find out what the local state is (b) find a way to calculate nonlocal from local. Both (a) and (b) are in general impossible propositions, except in the simplest cases of single particle and alike. e:)S Dana Johnson, Here is the anaglyph. You can see next to the cut round thing, imprint of what is very much alike a small creature, with consistent deminishing sized dots of spine, and possible other organs imprinted - in the oval apprent area that seems to be an imprint of egg: eS I mean not the trend's predictive power. Rather the predictive power of the future computers, the power they would need to simulate development of the world events and persons. Assuming that Moore law holds forever, it predicts that in the next 100 years computers will get times 10^30 faster. Well, it would mean that they will be able to see only 4 times further ahead than contemporary computers. After 1000 years of Moore law, the computers would be able to run 10^300 faster than today. That would mean that they will be able to forcast things 30 times further than what they can today. How far the computer can forcast the weather now? Couple weeks, not very precisely. So if the Moore law will hold for 1000 years, the weather forcast will be done for the whole year with the same precision as now. Not that impressive, if you expect the human mind and the world to be simulated soon :) eS @@ and you're assuming nothing else would change in 1000 years? @@ Wait a moment. If you are suggesting that the average computer speed next 1000 years will be faster than Moore law predicts, you must have something to back it up. You can not just claim it and base projections on your claim. Most would say that Moore law will work less than 30 years more. Now you are not happy when I assume, for the sake of having obviously too optimistic assessment, 1000 years more of Moore law :) Obviously, nothing of the simulation, resurrection, metabolizing, etc., will happen in the next 1000 years, if we will stay within known trends. eS @@@ greater truth, that the universe is composed of perfect mathematics that can be veiwed geometrically.. As this is true it MUST be possible to make MASSIVE shortcuts of prediction and grpahs @@@ Sorry, I would say it is a wishful thinking to expect any of break-throughs to happen in the next 100 or 1000 years. Quantum Computing and Nanonism are non-starters, they are against the fundamental laws of Nature. 3D will have hard time sustaining Moore law for long. ES The truth is, that you personally have nothing to back up your rosy scenarios. Ray at least has his diagrams, the Moore law. You claim much more than he does, without anything, any backing data whatsoever. You must admit that, and then continue making as propostrous claims as you wish. As we say here, it is a free country :) eS Can social organism of nation survive without immunity system? http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59751 Without the social machinery that eliminates deadly deviations, which must include morality component, the society organism is bound to be destroyed like body is destroyed by AIDS. Social Immunity Deficit Syndrom: does your country suffer from SIDS? eS C, when you are looking for money, it might help for you to know/communicate what is involved at a minimum on the software development side : THE ' SAI CORE ' DESIGN GENERAL ARCHITECTURE: OBJECTS WITH ASSOCIATIONS AS GRAPH/TREE ENGINE: GOAL ACHIEVING AND FORMING PERSISTENT BASIC GOALS KNOWLEGE PRESENTATION THROUGH MODELS &RELATIONS KNOWLEGE ACQUISITION, SEARCH, MODEL APPLICATION KNOWLEGE ORGANIZING & REORGANIZING PROBLEM SOLVING / SOLUTION SEARCH NATURAL LANGUGE PROCESSING MODEL: TARGET OBJECT / OBJECTS & RELATIONS SET / OBJECT DESCRIPTION ON KNOWLEGE LEVEL OBJECT PRESENTATION / IMAGINATION OBJECT BEHAVIOR /PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS ETC/ OBJECT SYMULATION (SPEED) & PROJECTION MODEL APPLICABILITY RECOGNITION MODELS OF MODELING : MODELS-OBJECTS-RELATIONS MODEL MODEL APPLICATION MODEL MODEL INSTANTIATION IN OBJECTS MODELING THE PERCEPTION GENERAL MODELS: OBJECTS - CHANGES - CASUALITY OBSERVATION - ANALYSIS - ACTION SPACE AND TIME NEEDS - DESIRES - GOALS SELF- WHATBELONGSTOME- INTERFACE- WORLD You can see that it is a limited task, although not a small one. If such core SAI is developed, it can be incorporated into any of existing and/or new GAI projects, as well as augmented with any elaborate interfaces desired. :) eS The existing wikipedia is policed in the 'wrong' way, they do not want any original research placed there. We could find a way let all ideas to be posted, but the ones accepted by the project kept in a separate way; also have the authors credited too, as well as criticied. eS I am not sure that everyone have focused on the oval spot, that I am talking about. Here it is. e 8) s @@ I looked at your AI plan ideation ES I hope that was OK but you put it on-line @@ Eldras, I guess I have came to the conclusion, that there is no way to ensure, that any choosen by me particular party will get it done first. On other hand I believe that regardless who will be the first, everyone will benefit sooner or later. Also the level on which I am discussing the solutions, still needs some additional insights :) eS @@ The importance and meanings of human existence, by your reasoning, cannot be captured by algorithms @@ Not at all. By my reasoning, it actually can be captured by algorithms, and exhibited by the appropriate machine running them. It does not depend although on knowing them, or on ability to predict the result of their running. eS @@ you argue contradictory thoughts. First you say that life is more than algorithms, then you say that the meaning of life can be captured in algorithms. @@ I did not say this. Life is an EXECUTION of some algorthms/for the purpose of issue at hand it is/. The MEANING of life is a totally different level issue: for human life it can be UNDERSTOOD, by the way, as joy prevailing over suffering. Knowing the algorithms of life, does NOT give you knowledge of the meaning of life. Not knowing the algorithms of life, does NOT prevent you from understanding the meaning of life. eS Many hallmark issues of transhumanism are attitudes, that are wrong, but can not be logically refuted or tested. It is in fact a superstition. @@ is there ANYTHING that couldmn't have been done in 1945? @@ Sure there is. The object oriented programming languages have not been developed until 80th, I believe. The graphic interface/windows/ was not developed and perfected. Hardware was slow and memory small, and so forth.. Anyway, your point is that we must be concerned with (a) possibility of puting the intellectual power into wrong hands (b) the consequences of runaway intellectual power. Both considerations are importent, but it might be impossible to guarantee ourself against those possibilities. The costs of missed opportunities are growing. The funny thing is that the wrong hands are sure to ignore both (a) and (b) Is not it better to make the whole project open and to do it for everybody, so that no one gets relative advantage due to SAI arrival? eS The progress is upon us and it shows. As some super star philosopher have said, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from miracle. Now we can add to it that sufficiently advanced superstition is indistinguishable from science. As Ahatha Christie have astutely observed, the superstition these days comes in closes of science - this probably why the truth must be naked. It has taken time for us to get around, but we've get the idea. Miss Maple was so kind to look into this business for us and promised to be discreet and keep police out of the loop for now, as no forced entry appeared to be involved. After few computer literacy lessons she was able to type with one finger and use the mouse quite well. The rest was easy, with that wonderful Internet and what have you. In a week I met miss Maple in a coffee shop. Her cheeks were more red than usual, but I do not think she had that much brandy in her coffee. You are not going to believe young man, how much Ahatha was right, whispered she with excitement. Sure I had to brush out on my Physics and the rest of it, smiled old lady. It is not my business to tell you what to do, but here are the facts. She has passed a napkin with pretty long list of terms, headed "Superstitions, Science Style." In the beginning I could read: Quantum Computing Entanglement Nanotech Multiworld Wormholes Teleportation ... .. Apparently I have lost consciousness, but when I was able to look around, the old lady had disappeared with her cup. @@ quality humanitarian effort @@ Just one tenth of one percent of the personal wealth of Bill Gates is needed.. He is a hypocrite. Spritually, we are as impoverished as any poor nation on Earth. Those money "humanitarian efforts" does not do any good in the long run, if we can not inspire. What has happen at the Renessaince? Instead of giving out money "to feed poor", they were directed into Arts, so that humanity has really benefited. eS Twenties were a time, when this sort of questions was on the agenda, like Godel, Turing, etc. The theories that they had initially in mind, were Physical theories. They wanted to generalize what was the case in Physical theories, to the Science in general. Not a good plan, since the specific feature of Physics is reduction to the simplest, and then modeling that simplest in Math terms. Defining of potentially debunking test is an easy in such case. In general case the theory might have limited sphere of applicabilty - as opposed to Physics that looks for universally applicable laws - so that is is impossible to build definitely debunking limited observation. In case of general knowledge it is possible that no single observation or limited set of observations, can prove that the theory is incorrect. The whole totality of observations must be taken into account, certainly not a superficial quality of the theory itself, that it admits, or does not admit or specify the ways its falseness could be proven if it were in fact false. So, the requirement of testability when generalized to be applicable to Science in general and Philosophy in general, can not be that the final test of falseness even exists/the falseness could be observed in limited observation/. Conclusion: An attempt to reduce Science in general to MetaPhysics, was not successful. That conemporary Philosophy is ignorant of that, is an another story :) eS [quote]Godel's theorem demonstrated.. that in any sufficiently complex system such as number theory, there exist truths that can neither be proven nor disproven[/quote] No, it did not do any such thing. He has proven that if you allow arbitrary self-referencing predicates AND your system is sufficiently complex, then some predicates can not be evaluated to neither true no false. You must not allow arbitrary self-referencing predicates, if you want formal logic to work. eS @@ If I make a statement such as "God exists", then it cannot be considered true because it cannot be proven false. @@ You are incorrect. How do you know that this can't be proven false? You do not. You assume it, and you assume it falsely. es [quote]Crtics of transhumanism claim that the movement seeks to replace the human race with an ill-defined successor. This, they say, is just another form of eugenics[/quote] It is much worse than eugenics. It is intellectually vacant, and practically repugnant and murderous. C, the so called progress is in fact s..l...o....w. All the hopes about coming good life are futile. Our friend Kurzweil missed the fact, that quality of life practically did not change over the history. Actually, it can not change ever, since we always evaluate everything with the same scale of pleasure-suffering. We are more stupid than our ancestors, and trunshumanism is an another clear proof of that. :) ES [quote]We seek to upload ourselves into a pre-existing and carefully controlled environment not subject to death or pain or hunger. That is not adaptation or life. That is extreme Narcissism, extending our selves in a linear fashion into an eternity of control, feeding off the psychic waste created by our own modulated and isolated systems of thought. How long do we function on the feedback of our own excrement? doojie[/quote] Bravo dojie, it is so true! Everything is relative. My ignorance apparently is, eh, a kind of profound wisdom - compared to the common ignorance. I wonder, what do you think can motivate me to reject pseudos - like nanonism? I do not get a penny for that, just am being called names. Is it your idea of having fun? :) eS [quote]Normal human being has everything that is needed to be happy[/quote] @@ but what you are preaching is complacency. Just because you are not satisfied to remain defined by and confined in your current limitations does not make you mentally ill. @@ No, I am not. I did not say that any self-improvement is insane :) I do not claim that at some situation a person can not make reasonable decision to get radically changed, like I do not claim that at some situation a person can not make reasonable decision to kill himself. The analogy with suicide is valid, since like we do not identify ourself with monkeys, when you are really radically changed you will not identify yourself and your former I. I have simply pointed out, that in our day and age, after all said and done, a transhumanist must be an insane peson. eS Like the eugenics it wrongly assumes, that the problem that we face are rooted in human deficiency. In fact they are rooted in social deficiency. eS C, As they say, the generals always fight the previous war. The same can be said about those who are trying to solve problems that humanity faces - they always solve the previous, gone problems. Like Marx was trying to solve problems of working class getting poorer. You care about hunger, but it has been solved by advances of agriculture. It exists only because of political deficiencies. There will be different stages in changing humans and the successing them species. The real question is what is the next step, since no step is final except the last one, death. To see next step as mass human augmentation is unrealistic. Also it is an attempt to solve personal problems from the past, while the problems of the next day that are social and political are neglected. Avoiding death is egotistic - it is antisocial also. The transhumanism is yesterday's idea, and the social problems of today and tomorrow will overcome it. ES Ex, all that you are saying does not change the simple fact , that nanotech is an ignorant fraud. The point that you must have risen, if although this: We need the fraud in order to function, this is an integral part of human condition. Stupid ES is trying to fight windmills here. And it is obvious that the rest of us understand him for what he is, and won't let him destroy the game. At that point I would not have anything to resist your wisdom. It is like NASA is probably right not recognizing ancient life discoveries on Mars, since in our age even natural selection is a source of public controvercy, that might cost them billions in funding. So, you won :) eS I can put it differently: intelligence and reason are derivative of will, and at same time are its self-negation. As far as their forming in faetus goes, it follows the same path as evolution. Quantum archeology is a superstition, because any model of real world is (a) part [of the part] of the real world (b) approximation is not an exact copy, because of (1)uncertainty principle (2) it can not model part of the world, itself (c) casuality modelled is limited because of(b), as full knowlege of world is necessarry to predict the modeled future. Simulation can end any moment on the whim of simulator boss, for example. (d) interactions of the real world can not be modelled because of (1) initial conditions are not exactly known (2) Laws of interaction are not precisely known (3) How to translate the laws into interaction results is not known. (4) interactions are too complex, so that no computing power can deal with them when number of objects simulated is nontrivial. (5) they are not stable computationally, so that small changes in input produce huge changes in output (e) there exist key differences between real perception and modelled peception: 1. Real perception corresponds to the body change, so the body must be modelled too to make model realistic. But the body can not be modelled computantially(d) 2. Let us assume, that model crteated a journal for the purpose of communicating with real world. Then there are two alternatives: 2.1. the modeller never(from the point of view of the model's simulated World) responds to the messages of model 2.2. the modeller responds to the messages of model at some point, thus openimg a possiblity of other out of casuality effects in the simulated World. The simulation becomes aware that it is a simulation. The simulator becomes sort of God of the simulation World, it is indistinguishable from God unless it chooses to inform the simulation of some realities of the real world and of the simulation's nature in particular. (f) like perception, will can not be modelled, as it is a body-brain distributed activity, and depends on the details of physical brain on a level below (g) the reality, especially the reality of brain, is supermassively parallel nonlinear physical process, it can not be modelled successfully with any noninfinite computational power. (h) The approxiating imitator can be cheated by the simulated intellect into violation of simulated casuality, since approximated simulation includes prediction, which is impossible. (i) even conditionally ignoring above impossibilities, conversion of modelled inputs into pain and pleasure is impossible, since in life it is bodily process that we do not have full control of: our will can suppress pain but not the cause of it; so the cause will enforce reality by doing actual harm. In model, the self-deceit might go unpunished, until the simulated object is dying simulated death. (j) .... Those considerations should be enough to reject the idea of "quantum archeology" completely-. eS Hello, Spock, You are welcome. The recent object of attention of the media was small figure on Mars, photographed by Spirit. They dropped the topic, as soon as it has become known that the object is two inch tall and that it is not alive. But it is very interesting object! Take a look at these pictures of it: Figurine 3D Overview 3D Here is one of the articles about it. Story Best, eS I doubt the idea that spherules where brought over to the soil surface from rocks or anywhere, since the sand/ground should have been formed after rocks where in place. The spherules arrival then would be active during the the ground formation, and they would be present in the volume. So the timeline needed to produce the surface only spherules population, does not seem to be reasonable. Spherules should have to be formed on the current surface. Which means that they are not concretions. es I can suggest definition of Life and Intelligence in one sentence each: Life: active self-sustaining Intelligence: ability to form and utilize abstractions These definitions seem to be compatible with observations, that life is possible without intelligence, like plant life, and intelligence is possible without life, like it is exhibited by some computer programs. Houston. For immediate release. Our rovers Spirit and Opportunity roam Mars for four years already. To improve on this sort of record is not that easy, but we are working on it. Absolutely. The new Rover is being in works, that can beat those old models hands down. The new rover will be nuclear powered, as opposed to those pesky solar panels, which so much obscure Spirit's vision. It will be equipped with laser gun, plus may be with a couple of machine guns, which can be handy if rover is used on the Moon, or if Martians will get too close. The work is well on the way, and a number of prototype units are being tested in Mars like environments overseas. The good thing about rover being nuclear powered, is that they are capable of nuclear explosion, which proves unparalleled flexibility of the design. The only thing that still is missing, is a name for the new Rover, to be blasted to Mars in a year. Hopefully, public will help us out with that in time. If someone cares about details, here are the links to look at, although we never can be held responsible for the content of outside sites, period. [link][url target=_self]http://io9.com/357202/looking-for-life-on-mars-with-the-next-generation-rover[/url]Topic in the Press[/link] [link][url target=_blank]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1A1_Abrams_lg.jpg[/url]New Rover Tested![/link] Very good explanation. Did you ever consider, that the who;e story is or could be a parody on the nanotech or quantcomp, that have precisely as much science behind as perpetuum mobile? e;)s QM works, but who needs Quantum Cryptography to know that! The "Quantum Cryptography" is an another failed example of misunderstanding of Quamtum Physics. It is being claimed to "work" but it does not. It does not protect against the Man-In-The-Middle attacks that it has promised. What has happen? The same thing that has happen with claims about Quantum Computers. eS [quote="Domoman"] Notice how it conveniently looks like all our aliens in movies?[/quote] Great. So you admit, that "it" looks like "aliens in movies". Well, this certainly a good reason to think that it is a ROCK :lol: The striking difference with the movies is that pictured on Mars species are different, not a single intelligent race for each planet as we used to see in the movies! es I was making a point, that producing incorrect results pays, actually better pays than of orrect ones, which require real knowlege and hard work. The fraud side is harder to prove, especially to someone who looks for alternative explanations. For example, I myself have written a couple of articles that show fallacy of "quantum computing". None of them were accepted by scientific magazines, with stated reasons purely superficial. Would not you think that importence of result would warrant publishing a work like that? eS [quote="raprap"][quote="farmerman"]Jever see the Old MAn of The Mountain in New Hampshire?[/quote] Not anymore [/quote] Sure. I wish you guys had 3D glasses. Have you ever seen human size head, curved naturally of rock, in any of Earth museums? No, you have not, period. Although the earth is pretty much known, and has been excavated too. The four heads on Mars found, although the observation has covered just tenth of square mile! e :P s Discovery discovered: Sculptures on Mars http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/61076005cp.shtml http://marslife.us/press/WHAT_ABOUT_LIFE_ON_MARS.pdf http://marslife.us/proof/ http://marslife.us/mycommon/2p1367-2P247720343EFFAWCCP2415L7M1-creature-composed.jpghttp://www.i-newswire.com/pr88044.html http://marslife.us/mycommon/2p1367-2P247720343EFFAWCCP2415L7M1-3creature.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7228640.stm http://www.thespoof.com/editorials/index.cfm?eID=2390 http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i30577 http://marslife.us/Quantum%20Projection%20Postulate%20Enigma.pdf http://marslife.us/proof/c/art/2006-01-03-2N189580915EFFALBUP0695R0M1-sphinx.jpg http://marslife.us/Discovering-Martian-Stone-Age-with-FIGS_files/image016.jpg [img]http://marslife.us/proof/z-martian/2p074-2P132943648EFF2100P2353R1M1-girl-Ls-stereo.jpg[/img] http://marslife.us/proof/z-martian/2p085-2P133918705EFF2232P2363L7M1-whead-stereo1.jpg http://eqdoc.home.netcom.com/salt2.html http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/exhibits/glen_evans/archeology/malakoff_heads.html I will try to post pictures again. It might work this time. Let's see. The first one has been taken by Spirit about January 3, 2006 The second one has been taken by Spirit about April 1, 2004 eS Members of the media, please contact Guy Webster about Mars related questions. (818) 354-5011 or Guy.Webster@jpl.nasa.gov [ats]http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats52534_marseanna_100x100.JPG[/ats] We have sent twin rovers to Mars four years ago. They still send us pictures from the Red Planet surface. Surely we are paying attention to the images that travel millions miles to get here? Or do we? Here are a few examples. If you are already familiar with them, you can go straight to the head of the class. [size=2]Below are genuine 3D images, photographed by the Rover Spirit in Gusev crater on Mars:[/size] [ats]http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats52517_image016.jpg[/ats] [ats]http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats52518_2006-01-03-2N189580915EFFALBUP0695R0M1-sphinx.jpg[/ats] [ats]http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats52520_3D-from-martian-images.jpg[/ats] [size=2]Here we have it. At least we know that not only humans have had invented Gods! And we know that there was ancient Civilization on Mars!![/size] Martian Gods' images from Mars We have sent twin rovers to Mars four years ago. They still send us pictures from the Red Planet surface. Surely we are paying attention to the images that travel millions miles to get here? Or do we? Here are a few examples. If you are already familiar with them, you can go straight to the head of the class. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread338061/pg1' http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats52534_marseanna_100x100.JPG http://www.inauka.ru/blogs/article81355.html http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/4059990.html http://marslife.us/mycommon/Q_MIND_2.jpg http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i30577 Thanks for the link. Sorry to diaappoint you, but the calculation there is nonsense. The energy E=mc2 use is idiotic. He takes the full energy of laptop, and divides it by the energy of single computation. So, the laptop should disappear after that second, all its energy spent. What should have been used, is power consumption of the laptop, that we can put as 100 kilowatt :) The corrected formula is: f=sqrt(P/h) which gives f= sqrt(10^5/ (6.6*10^-34)) ~ sqrt(10^38)=10^19 Quite a difference !!! ___________________________________________ Proof: dE*dT>h dE/h > 1/dT dE * (1/dT) / h > (1/dT)^2 P/h > f^2 fh dE/h > 1/dT N*dE/h > N/dT N*dE * (N/dT) / h > (N/dT)^2 f=N/dT dE*f=P N*P/h > f^2 f