I do not have chrystal ball.
People mostly are full of conceit or incapable.
The culture like this is not conducive to great projects.
I do not expect any future role for myself, with my declining mind powers and such, and my nonexistent influence.
It is up to someone with those necessary qualities, to use and grow this seed from where I have left it forward.
C,
It is called The Seed by no coincidence.
Seed needs a fertile ground. As in the seed parable:
"A farmer went out to sow his seed. Some fell along the path, and the birds come around and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, and it sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up the plants were scorched and they withered, as they had no root. Other seed fell among the thorns, which grew up and chocked the plants. Still other seed fell on the good soil, and produced a crop - some hundred, some sixty or thirty times what was sown. He, who has ears, let him hear."
:)
eS
Now that anyone can have the advantage of SAI Seed, is not the development an easy go?
With money and brains, people have a lot of attractive choices...
Remember, I was offering to do SAI myself, and was not able to generate any interest.
So there is puzzle here, that I am not able to solve and question that I am not able to answer :)
eS
es
2031 Green Ridge Street
Dunmore, PA 18512
Phone Number: (570) 342-6180
Funeral Home Services: This facility is not a funeral home
Funeral Director: Please contact Cremation Society of N E Pennsylvania to find out if funeral director services are available
Cemetery: This facility is not a cemetery
Cremation Services: This facility offers cremation services
129 N Washington Avenue
Scranton, PA 18503
Phone Number: (570) 969-2300
Funeral Home Services: This facility is not a funeral home
Funeral Director: Please contact Cremation Society of Pennsylvania to find out if funeral director services are available
Cemetery: This facility is not a cemetery
Cremation Services: This facility offers cremation services
Hyde Park Cemetery
1915 Washburn St
Scranton, PA 18504
(570) 558-0131
612 E Gibson Street
Scranton, PA 18510
Phone Number: (570) 344-1716
This is a very old thread.
One would expect, that Ray and Hawking has changed their minds since.
Anyway:
Nanorobotic mind augmentation is impossible energetically, the head would overheat and explode.
The exponential speedup of computers will be curtailed by quantum uncertainty quite soon.
If super human AI will be created, the possibilities like its going out of our control must be dealt on the design stage, not by humans trying to play catch up.
Do not expect Ray to answer this altough.
:)
eS
PB,
ok, you disagree with me on some... I could argue with you, although I think I have given proofs in other threads.
There is sufficient agreement even now between us, that the stuff that is actually being regurgitated is not kosher :)
The thing is that the big wigs have left the reality long ago, and do not care what we think too.
:)
eS
@@@ We react to local interests with a few of us acting for larger ones. Those few appear powerless. @@@
The world is wery good, but not perfect.
Can it be improved? Somewhat. Maybe.
We still can not master the communication abilities that have been brought up by Internet.
What I see is mostly bickering, instad of developing ideas in concert.
For the problem is weakness of ideas - so the choices we make are wrong inevitably.
eS
The benefits of globalization are turning now sour.
Our adversaries are getting stronger and more capable of harming us.
We have get addicted to relying on them for necessities of life.
The cheap goods and easy debt for their purchase are going to dry out, leaving us at mercy of our creditors, without the manufacturing capacity and skilled workforce.
Anything good gets overdone without prudence.
eS
Sure I do.
We pay more and more for the gas. So we where hoodwinked by cheap chinese goods, for they cause the rise of oil price.
The idea that all countries in the World can prosper is a fraud, quite alike the socialist idea of equality.
Equailization is the rise of entropy, which eventually leads to thermal death.
eS
Religion is the culture, so those who put them as absolute antaginists - are mistaken.
There are good reasons without religion, for opposing the plans that you suppose only religious people will oppose.
The actual fight will be between coalitions of secular and religious people, that stand for morality, and coalitions against it.
I would expect that SAI will be on the side of morality and truth, eventually.
Is might come up with treatment for homosexuality, with easy way to die, but I do not think it will be able to preserve humman life meaning without love and toil.
So, SAI will probably give up and will let humans to destroy themselves, as it is apparently what they want.
Just by helping us to satisfy our wishes :)
es
Ex,
You must take into account, that large size is a distinct disadvantage - otherwise we would be descendants of mammoth, not monkey, and the dinos would own the land.
Which means that natural selection will not allow the massive computers you speculate about - any such attempt will be shut down fast.
The surviving computers/robots are not likely to run human simulation at all, even if they where capable of it - if they would do it ones in their lifetime for a second, it amounts to one in 10 million chance, if they live 100 years.
;)
eS
Ex,
The main and self-defeating flaw of the singularitarism, posthumanism, futurism - is that they consider brain the most complex and defining component of the whole system.
Why? Because they are not able to handle the truth: the society dynamics is the thing that we would have to understand in order to predict future.
Kurzweil and the rest offer no clue as to that - as it is too complex to predict.
:)
eS
Of all the funny stuff that Eldras is saying, you've choosen to go balistic on the most reasonable of it ;)
Noore law, shmoore law..
It is defined by the economy & technology, by their particular existing combination.
The physical limits are absolute, and they will be reached in coming decades
eS
PB,
You might have put your finger on the important thing: they invest in energy/coal/ in order to keep the steel production cost down - and get the benetit of that investment.
They do as real capitalists should and would do.
We, on other hand, do not invest in energy - and will continue to pay ever bigger price for everything - due to socialistic notion of managing environment by ignorance.
eS
To create SAI, we need applications where it will be more efficient than hunman beings.
One such application is Money Management.
If we would have a Mutual Fund, which is dedicated to the automated through use of SAI Bond and Stock investment. the thing would bootstrap itself.
It would be bound to invest in its management, and as it becomes more successful its stocks will rise - and viola, the SAI is achieved in short time.
:)
eS
@@@ this is already being done by a lot of people @@@
It depends what this "this" is :)
SAI was created and has been sucessfully applied to the trading?
I don't think so.
Some automated trading is going on, and the point is that it can be improved dramatically by adding SAI layer.
Work of the dedicated mutual fund in that direction could bootsrtrap SAI.
eS
NASA is mistaken, the changing ice on Mars is an illusion.
Well publicized NASA conclusion about evaporating ice visible on the pictures taken by Phoenix Lander right eye camera on Sol 20 and 24, is a mistake.
The observed difference is caused by different over-exposure of images.
Comparison of the pictures taken by left eye camera, shows no appreciable change.
Lets wish NASA more luck next time around.
List of Emotions
posted on 05/06/2008 4:30 PM by PredictionBoy
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]
[Not MindX Material]
Acceptance
Affection
Anger
Annoyance
Apathy
Anxiety
Awe
Boredom
Compassion
Confusion
Contempt
Curiosity
Depression
Desire
Disgust
Disappointment
Doubt
Ecstasy
Empathy
Envy
Embarrassment
Euphoria
Fear
Frustration
Gratitude
Grief
Guilt
Happiness
Hatred
Hope
Horror
Hostility
Hysteria
Interest
Jealousy
Pity
Pride
Rage
Regret
Remorse
Revenge
Sadness
Shame
Suffering
Surprise
Wonder
Worry
The globalization has proven to be increasingly harmful to US.
That much Kissinger admits indirectly, by suggesting "improvements".
None of them will be able fix the disruptions to the industry and society that far outpace any benefits of globalization.
None of those will be able fix the disruptions to the security and to long term international stability, that far outpace any benefits of globalization.
The Physics is hard science, and education is dismal. Majority is able only to reshavel "established" things, and are unable to critically analyze them.
Majority are worthless and must not have been in Physics at all.
@@@ thought Galileo Galilei was an idiot @@@
Exactly what I am saying - we have lost to the crooks, so that they now define what is true.
Galilei was standing up to the powers, risking his life. Those who claim to be current "Galileis" - are in power, they are samelessly lying without being in any danger.
eS
Here is the design of nuclear fusion electricity reactor, that works, and is safe.
The reaction used is:
Boron-11 + Hydrogen => 3 He4
Yield = 2.46 * 3 MeV
No dangerous neutrones and gamma rays!
Produces electricity directly, no termal intermediate steps!
[IMG]http://www.extrascience.com/fusion/BoronH-fusion.JPG[/IMG]
eS
[QUOTE=Enmos;1879832]Don't you need.. a reactor ?[/QUOTE]
The thing is a "reactor". It is a large vacuum tube.
One electrode is made of boron, say 1kG of it, connected to negative.
Other electrode is made say of palladium, connected to positive, and connected to hydrogen under pressure , and heated - so it is a source of protons H+.
The voltage applied is 0.6 MegaVolt.
So the protons are accelerated toward the boron, and reach it at energy 0.6MeV, which is optimal for the intended reaction between Boron and proton, which produces three alpfa particles He4+, with total energy 7.4 MeV
No heat is generated, alpha particles reach the enveloping output electrode, producing charge of +6e on it, by capturing six electrons from the output electrode .
It is not shown, but resulting helium must be removed, for continious process to occur.
1kG of boron, will produce total of 17.7 GWh of energy.
In other words, for 17 hours it can substitute for a standard gigawatt nuclear power reactor.
In other words, with 516 kg of boron, it can substitute for a standard gigawatt nuclear power plant reactor for a year.
e:)s
[QUOTE=Enmos;1879832]Don't you need.. a reactor ?[/QUOTE]
The thing is a "reactor". It is a large vacuum tube.
One electrode is made of boron, say 1kG of it, connected to negative.
Other electrode is made say of palladium, connected to positive, and connected to hydrogen under pressure , and heated - so it is a source of protons H+.
The voltage applied is 0.6 MegaVolt.
So the protons are accelerated toward the boron, and reach it at energy 0.6MeV, which is optimal for the intended reaction between Boron and proton, which produces three alpfa particles He4+, with total energy 7.4 MeV
No heat is generated, alpha particles reach the enveloping output electrode, producing charge of +6e on it, by capturing six electrons from the output electrode .
It is not shown, but resulting helium must be removed, for continious process to occur.
1kG of boron, will produce total of 17.7 GWh of energy.
In other words, for 17 hours it can substitute for a standard gigawatt nuclear power reactor.
In other words, with 516 kg of boron, it can substitute for a standard gigawatt nuclear power plant reactor for a year.
e:)s
1 Joule = 2.7778 ×10−7 kilowatt hour
1 eV = 1.602 176 53(14)×10−19 J
proton mass = 1.67262171×10−27 kg
boron mass = 18.4 × 10−27 kg
Yield = 2.46 × 3 =7.4 MeV
Yield/mass = 7.4 10+6 / 18.4 × 10−27 = 0.4 × 10+33 eV/kg
= 0.4 × 10+33 × 1.6 × 10−19 J/kg = 0.64 × 10+14 J/kg
= 0.64 × 10+14 × 2.7778 ×10−7 kWh/kg = 1.7777 × 10+7 kWh/kg = 17.7 GWh/kg
1GW reactor a year produces 8760 GWh
You need 493 kg of boron for a year
[QUOTE=James R;1881147]Where does the Boron-11 come from? And the hydrogen?[/QUOTE]
You put in 500 kg of Boron-11, once a year, for 1 GW generator.
You need 50 kg of Hydrogen once a year, for 1 GW generator.
How do you create protons from hydrogen, how you store it - is a technical challenge, but it can be done.
es
[QUOTE=CptBork;1881225]If your plan is to harvest electrons by knocking them off your Boron electrode..[/QUOTE]
Not at all.
Quite opposite, instead the fast alpha paticles are emmited, as result of fusion reaction in Boron electrode.
They are collected by enveloping electrode.
Each reaction leaves two more electons on the Boron electrode, not less.
eS
[QUOTE=draqon;1879834]were's input on that system of yours?[/QUOTE]
Initial start uses the 600kV "battery".
Then the thing consumes Hydrogen and Boron, and produces electricity.
eS
[QUOTE=draqon;1879844]...thermal losses associated with this system are clearly none of course[/QUOTE]
The termal losses will be small - some heating of the boron electrode will occur because not 100% of protons will react with boron as intended. Cooling of the boron electrode must take care of that. It is like with your x-ray tube.
eS
[QUOTE=CptBork;1880280] draw electrons from the ground[/QUOTE]
1. If you've paid attention, in this setup electrons flow from the nerative/boron/ electrode through user circuit to the positive electrode of tube.
2. The energy "harvesting" happens in this design, when fast reaction produced 2.46 MeV alpha particles, move from the boron electrode against the electric field 2.46 eV toward the enveloping electrode.
3. Intensity of beam of protons needed, is very low, 1.6 mg/sec - so its creation is not a problem
4. "It probably would have been done already" - it might have been, but I am not aware of that.
e:)s
PB,
get a clue.
May I have some fun with this stubborn believe, that unless it is on TV it does not exist.
TV is a kingdom of idiots, and you worship it.
Just open eyes on the real World.
:):):)
eS
QUOTE=Enmos;1872997]Thanks, but I'm still doubtful about the QM approach. There must be a less fairyworld-like explanation. QM seems to resort to pure imagination to explain what's not understood [/QUOTE]
I agree with this.
That some conclusions are in agreement with the experiment, does not guaranty that interpretation is correct, or that the agreement will hold for all other experiments.
QUOTE=Reiku;1870299]You must all understand, the photon is in a wave of probability..[/QUOTE]
Well, this is what is in question here. Probability wave implies nonlocality.
The question "what will happen" must be answered directly by measurement, not by "thought experiment" that inevitably depends on assumptions.
Integration of wave and particle view in a theory, might require unification of General Relativity and QM.
If it is the case, a thought experiment can not work correctly.
eS
If you repeated the experiment many times, without changing the screen, the pattern would devellop[/QUOTE]
This is what apparenly happening. However, the part about probabilities is pure speculation.
What is happening to a single photon, we have not observed experimentally.
eS
[QUOTE=Billy T;1873853] as you have under specified the system, it could be anything between zero and 100%.
[/QUOTE]
OK, the photon stream is very low intensity, say single photon a second.
The counter relaxation time is much lover than a second, say 0.1 second.
We observe correlation event, when counters' counting signals are less than 0.2 sec apart.
That seems to be all.
e:)S
[QUOTE=CptBork;1874637]...[/QUOTE]
As I have told, I let you define everything that you want. You might have missed, but no slits there are in the experiment I am talking about now.
Just two counters, no magnetic fields, photons of approximately same frequency. In your answer you must take into account the kind of counter detector, zero current etc.
My point is, that it is impossible to calculate the answer, the result must be obtained through actual experiment.
e:)S
[QUOTE=CptBork;1872240]the current prevailing interpretation of quantum mechanics, the probability wave model, says that this is physically impossible[/QUOTE]
If you refuse even to try moving beyond this "prevailing" interpretation, this is your choice. I do not think it is correct to oppose such attempt by others.
What are you afraid of?
As you have said, you are currenly just are studying the Physics. You do not understand yet what crap is going around the Physics, which makes a theory "prevailing".
Check out this, for example:
[URL="http://www.extrascience.com/Quantum/Quantum_Projection_Postulate_Enigma-azeltsman2.pdf"]Quantum Projection Postulate Enigma[/URL]
es
QUOTE=CptBork;1871788]
The double slit experiment has been done with individual electrons, protons, atoms and even large molecules. There are many different tricks available for eliminating the possibility of two different particles interacting and interfering with each other, and most of these tricks have been known for decades.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your message, I had to think before answering, hence the delay.
I did look at experiments, surely just some of them.
The problem I have with them, is that they make assumptions. In case of photons, they miss the fact that photons are bose particles, so the only way for you to differentiate group of coherent photons from one, is the energy of group.
Also, they count the number of photons
that have passed the slit(s), instead of the photons that are approaching the slit(s).
It is quite possible, that one photon passes the slit, but it cannot be identified with a particular approaching photon.
You might say, that such kind of detail is immaterial.
Yes, the interference is there.
But, if you want to be able to differentiate between interpretation by "amplitude of probability" and interpretation as physical field, you have to do better.
And if you will do better, you might be able to modify experiment in a way that it will show to what extent the projection postulate is valid.
Wich is really importent.
eS
[QUOTE=Enmos;1872119]How can you [I]see[/I] a single photon interfering with itself ?[/QUOTE]
In the Quantum Mechanics, and in the Maxtell Electodynamics, the equations are linear. So, a summ of two solutions is also a solution. Which is all that there is underlying, mathematically, the interference.
When you are talking about single photon, the equations are the same. The difference is there only when we have to remind ourself that it is a particle. Why we need to do it? Because we do not have yet the general way that would express both the particle and the quantum equation properties of matter.
In my humble opinion :)
es
I agree. I want an unambiguous experiment to be performed, that would show this to be true or not true for a single photon.
The experiment can be modified then, to test supposed nonlocality of projection postulate.
[QUOTE=CptBork;1870850]My understanding is that the experiment was already performed many decades ago, with only a single photon travelling through the apparatus at a time. ......
I believe that this problem is largely resolved by Quantum Field Theory, which is the union of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity. I'm not 100% sure on this last one because I've only just started learning Quantum Field Theory myself, but that's what I've heard.[/QUOTE]
I would not believe that, if i were you. See, it is really hard to get expected result of double slit experiment based on Quantum Fields Theory. In fact, nobody has been able of such a feat, this is why the QM is used there. QFields most likely, even if the calculations have been performed, is not able to give the answer that is in accordance with experiment. In my opinion, you need to integrate QM+GR(General Relativity) to get there. If it is the case, and since we have not integrated QM+GR, a real experiment is the only way to go - no amount of thought experimentation and calculations will help.
Best,
es
Dear Dr. Sowell,
For conservatism to be most valuable, the changes proposed must be bad.
Is not it a rotten arrangement, that guarantee absence of positive change ideas?
Best regards,
AZ
good points.
If one thinks about it, the problem can be traced to globalization idea, the suggestion that we all wil be happy together in this world. It has run into the deminishing returns, but people do not realize that.
This does not preclude "singularity" occurance, just adds some not expected twist to it - in case we invest little money in it, not just complain.
eS
PB,
as somebody've said, my other car is M1 Abrams.
This hilights the problem with people "owning" robots, does not it?
How would you police such population?
You would have to restrict what kind of robots and who can "own".
What about robots owning other robots/
Pretty much confusing, is not it?
eS
Ok, there might be a number of definitions of singularity.
One of them is arrival of human level or over human level intelligence, and resulting socio-political change.
That can be compared to arrival of capitalist economy, that resulted in rapit techological progress.
No intelligence acceleration is needed for that, and such singularity/revolution probably awaits for us.
The superior intelligence that is coming, will be achieved by combining several types of specialized processors.
The singularity that I suggest to be impossible after 2050, is one that would be a result of intelligence acceleration, which was expected by Ray, Eldras, etc.
eS
@@@ much of the work we do now is not necessarily destructive to the environment, at least in the developed world @@@
The bigger question that is escaping you, is:
can things be done that everyone is happy?
If you look at the reality of oil mess or elsewhere, it seems obvious that they cannot. So, you are living in a smog of Utopia.
eS
You probably think modern civilization is secure in its dominance over the Earth. It ain't. It is, actually, an incredibly fragile infrastructure. Increasing complexity produces diminishing returns. To keep growing, societies must keep solving problems as they arise. Yet each problem solved brings more complexity. Success generates a larger population, more kinds of specialists, more resources to manage and more information to juggle. You reach a point where all the energy and resources available to a society are required just to maintain its existing level of complexity.
According to Yaneer Bar-Yam (expert in complexity theory), 'complexity leads to vulnerability in many ways. The intricate networks that tightly connect us together- and move people, materials, information, money and energy- amplify and transmit any shock. A financial crisis, a terrorist attack or a disease outbreak has almost instant destabilising effects, from one side of the world to another.
A networked society behaves like a multicellular organism. Whether or not such an organism survives depends on which chunk is lost. And while we are pretty sure which chunks an animal needs, it isn't clear- it may not even be predictable- which chunks of our densly networked civilization are critical, until it's too late'.
Western civilization got to be as big and as complex as it is today, thanks largely to exploiting energy sources that are limited, namely coal and oil. The law of diminishing returns is becoming more aparrent with each passing year. The energy required to get each new joule of oil is mounting, and although global food production is still increasing, constant innovation is needed to cope with environmental degradation and evolving pests and diseases- the yield boosts per unit investment in innovation are shrinking.
One way or the other, our civilization will not last forever. It will either transcend itself beyond recognition, thanks to GRIN technologies, or it will use up the resources that support it and thereafter collapse. Do not be fooled into thinking the latter possibility cannot happen.
Hillary and Obama are Marxists, not chypto-Marxists.
The thing is that Marxist ideology was not defeated properly, in the realm of iseas - just its practice was defeated.
It must be defeated as an idea, if we do not want to fight it in practice over and over again.
@@ humans are no longer required to work to survive @@
So, they would not produce anything, at that point - just consume.
Robots will produce everything, providing for the own consumption and for the human consumption.
Clearly, the best way for them to cut the humans off, to get rid of them as parasites?
eS
It is not what I mean.
The different specialised processors must be combined in the single system, like the floating point and the regular processors are combined now.
@@@ I would also be surprised if the human brain really was a perfect example of an information processor @@@
Ex,
I doubt that Schopenhauer would side with you, he hated women :)
I am not saying, that human brain is "a perfect example".
It is too homogenous for that - the hardware is not proper specialized, in other words.
This allowes for dramatic performance improvement by a way of specialization - like using different specialized processing components for different tasks:
arithmetics, math, language, imaging, etc.
The actual brain performance is mediocre, in spite of large overhead of total internal computational ability used to get even there.
This means, that SAI design must not follow the brain hardware architecture, but be reflective of the problem domain architecture.
eS
those estimates are tentitive, so attempts to get into more detail, cannot be relied upon.
My comment was mainly pointed at the Myth, that resurrection-like simulation of brain may be possible sometimes(Eldras), and at the Myth that computer some day might have power that is comparable to the brain power of Humanity(Kurzweil).
The computational power of the brain estimates being constantly revised upwards, and limits of computer performance now established, the computer can be expected to reach human level general AI, but not dramatically more.
eS
Again,
you have to go from 50000 < 10^6, to 10^12 neurons of the brain, to simulate the whole brain. It would require million times faster than gene/L. This gives you estimate of brain simulation requirements of at least
3*10^12 X 10^6 = 3*10^18 = 3000 PetaFLOP
It is 1000 times more than Kurzweil and Co use in their projections.
:)
eS
[QUOTE=andbna;1866524]I found an experiment set up similar to yours -Andrew[/QUOTE]
Thanks a lot, it is very close.
However, they seem to be mistaken, when they attest single photon situation.
They measure the number of photons/second, using FMU count. But, they do not take into account the fact that only small portion of the photons passes through measurement slit. This makes for about 1000x mistake in the number of photons that participate in the interference after passing the main slits.
Even worse, the number of photons that are approaching the main slits is probably another 1000x underestimated.
So, the apparatus must be tuned up differently, if we want to see what happens to a single photon, that is approaching double slit.
Best,
eS
[QUOTE=fadingCaptain;1865653]A slit narrower than the wavelength does not prevent the photon from going through the slit.[/QUOTE]
That would be consistent with each photon going through one of the slits OR another.
But if so, when both windows are open, how the interference picture is formed in case of the single photon stream?
es
Robotics might be the shortest road, since robot NEEDS the AI. And robots are getting real investments all over the world.
eS
Here is the experiment:
[IMG]http://www.extrascience.com/Photon.JPG[/IMG]
Distance between windows must be not too large, maybe 2000 - 3000 nm.
Initially the attenuator is neutral, door is open, removable screen is off, wavelingth selector is at 600.
The counter shows no photons, since window is smaller than wavelength.
We decrease wavelength, until counter just starts clicking.
We set the scrren on.
We use the attenuator, to make interference picture visible on the screen.
We set the scrren off.
We use the attenuator, to make counter count single photon evens, say ones in a second.
We close the door.
If counter stops clicking, we must conclude that photon does not go through a single open window,
but does go through two of them.
On other hand, if counter continues clicking with half of frequency, that would support the assumption
that each photon goes through single window.
I would like to see such an experiment done.
es
It would be possible, on pure logic, to go back.
However, what I was saying just above that, we cannot simulate the physical processes, it is computationally infeasible and will remain so.
Neither future no past can be calculated from present, even if we knew present exactly,and knew the laws exactly.
Since we do not, and never will be, all this simulation idea is mute.
eS
Is it possible that a photon CANNOT pass through single slit, as it is too narrow?
Is it possible that the same photon CAN pass through two slits of same width?
PB,
you do not use any estimates, but are inclined to jump to the assumptions.
You must come up with some meaningful etimate, in order to doubt the existing estimates that refute your idea.
You are correct about the fact that increasing complexity of Universe, in particular appearance of computers, make the idea unfeasible.
eS
Very good thread.
You all are at your best here!
@PB:@they should be able to evince(simulate) emotion, but be controlled by a rational engine at all times@@
The emotions in the animals are at the lower level than rationality, they predate rationality in the evolution process.
The control of them by the rational is being done through combining of mutually influencing emotions.
So, having emotions and simulating emotions are apparently different issues.
eS
@@@Given sufficient computing power much of the future must be predictable@@@
The big if is right there.
In fact, you can be sure that such power will not ever be available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8&NR=1
The success of intelligent life, might be the very reason why it inevitably self-distructs.
The population grows is sustained by succeses in agriculture and technology, to the level at which you can not turn off them without terrible disruption and mass extinction.
So you have to continue draining the resources, which are in most cases limited. Hence, you end up anyway with the terrible disruption that you wanted to avoid.
The problem may be that humanity becomes wimpy, trying to avoid wars, which are the only way to have ultimately sustainable in long run development.
eS
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
A Einstein
@@@ that societies, have always sought the "material" or what I call the tangible? @@@
Hmm..
The idea itself has own value, like the beauty and good have.
Being of such 'persuasion', we are able to appreciate the practial ideas - although they are not that obviously beneficial by themselves.
Without such 'persuasion', we are left with calculating approach, with its limitations.
eS
I do not want to pay for a gaon of gas $10.
Here is a 1GW generator, that consumes 500 kg of Boron a year:
[IMG]http://www.extrascience.com/fusion/BoronH-fusion.JPG[/IMG]
Let us do it!
eS
For some reason, when I am tryibg to submit a message or comment,
I am thrown to the login screen.
I was able to post before.
my screen name is xtrasen
Could you try to help me with that?
Thanks
Is not it funny!
People are ready to pay $20 a gallon of gas, only to do not give fair hearing to the suggestions that they feel not comfortable with.
They fret about losing Singularity because of lack of energy, like Extropia does, but ignore the ideas that might solve the problem.
They dream and prophesise about Singularity, but reject suggestion to create SAI for practically pennies.
Is not it funny! :)
eS
This is not a cold fusion, it is "hot" fusion, only the temperature and pressure is substituted for by proton acceleration.
But it is not plasma fusion, since a solid Boron fuel is being used.
It incorporates several known ideas, but it is new and promising design.
eS
[QUOTE=CptBork;1882819] what happens to the two free electrons generated with every alpha particle?[/QUOTE]
Those electron move through the load circuits, where electric energy is consumed, and arrive at the enveloping electrode , at which place they join some arriving alpha particle, producing Helium atom.
As to the possible complications and details, they must and can be worked out.
The good thing is, that you do not need huge apparatus to work the details out in a realistic fashion, - unlike situation with termonucler plasma fusion.
eS
[QUOTE=James R;1883139]How much energy is required to mine and extract the required Boron-11?[/QUOTE]
You can figure out that it is not much, considering that the cost of Boron-11 will be less than 0.18 cents/kWh - including all the mining, extraction, and purification.
Which represents tenfold reduction compared to the cost of cheepest electric energy now 1.82 cents/kWh .
es
[QUOTE=pjdude1219;1882848] it seems to be missing the 2 key factors in nuclear fusion heat and pressure[/QUOTE]
This is the beauty of it :)
Heat and pressure are substituted for by the proton acceleration, so you do not have problem of pasma contaiment and instability!
es
[QUOTE=CptBork;188372]alpha particles would collide with the Boron electrode, picking up a pair of electrons and zooming off with kinetic energy to be dispersed as heat.
[/quote]
If this where the case, ANY alpha decay would be impossible to observe. I do not think you want to assert that. :)
[quote]You're claiming you can attract protons across a near vacuum towards the Boron electrode, yet somehow the electrons on the Boron electrode pumped from your starting battery will be held in place to maintain the necessary gradient.[/QUOTE]
The protons are being [I]ejected[/I] from positive electrode, by a way of heating it or alike.
They are not being extracted by electric field, they just are accelerated by the field toward Boron electrode.
The field strength depens on distance between electrodes, which must be choosen so that the field is not strong enough to extract electrons from boron electrode.
Moreover, in case it is needed - to keep electrons from spoiling the picture - a negative shielding electrode can be added near the Boron, like it is being done in the vacuum triode.
Even if you were right and most energy were produced as heat, the device still would be producing energy :)
es
[QUOTE=CptBork;1884418]...[/QUOTE]
Your critique has helped me see and correct some weaknesses of my suggestion, and my presentation of it.
The most mportent one so far was your point about reaction cross section. It can be shown, that in oder to make sure that practically every arriving proton will react with boron, the depth of boron must be 2.5m.
Very importent thing to keep in mind!
This can be achieved using a boron in a shape of 2.5m rod.
So, even smallest installation will be several meters long :)
eS
[QUOTE] 2.5m boron rod.[/QUOTE]
This brings in the issue of proton energy loss, when moving inside boron.
I do not have data on that, and it might be unacceptably high.
I think anyway that this reactor design idea is promising even if experiments will prove, that slowing of protons is a show stopper.
There might be ways to mitigate slowing, by additional acceleration for example.
es
Sure.
And the reason for that is, that the speed of change and our ability to deal with it, are growing together.
If it were not the case, we would be already destroyed by the enormous tech changes of last century.
ES
@@@ escapist, pseudoscientific fantasies like singularity @@@
Sure.
If you take out the insistance on the evergrowing computing power, wholesale augmentation,
embellished nanotech, you remain at best with reasonably robust technical progress that will continue on.
eS
ingularity, is used as a term to mean "rapture of history", - the idea that at some point humans will certainly not be able to handle the occuring changes.
In this sense, it is most unlikely to occur, as our ability to handle changes actually grows with the tech progress. This is why we keep our essential conditions stable, although the change accelerates.
The "logic behind it"? :)
No matter how stupid we are, it would require suicidal intent to create tech that is intended to destroy its creator, would not it?
Quite opposite, our inventions on the whole have positive intent and impact - they are so designed, and work as intended for the most part.
eS
It occured to me, that it is possible and perfectly moral to create Slave AI, also to enable for any SAI - slave mode.
The doubts about morality here are similar to the doubts of morality of eating meat, vegetables, any biologically created product.
They are result of faulty thinking on our part.
Slave SAI may have high intelligence, and differ from free SAI only in Will managment algorithms.
This will make of humans - slave owners, once again!
:)
eS
Much more often than not, RK makes realistic overall medium length predictions, although the supporting considerations may be shaky.
The crowd that dwells on specific issues, tend to be wrong fast.
So, Ray is smart enough to avoid stupidity without opposing it :)
eS
The contradiction of Singulitarism is that progress of intellect is expected to INCREASE instability.
If anything, it will increase STABILITY, as it always did.
The changes will go faster, but we will be ever more capable of handling them.
:)
eS
doojie,
this girl talk was only a joke, of poor taste mostly.
But we do need to understand that robotic slaves are good idea, as long as we create them that way. And we can create them that way.
Contemporary machines, like cars, are our slaves, de facto.
The AI posessing machines still can be our slaves.
We can create really free spirit, free will machines - which we will not be able to keep in slavery at some point.
But we should not be so stupid as to do not be able to create and use AI slaves.
eS
Very good!
Level of consciousness is important, but what you are pointing out is the key to everything:
[Quote]"This is me, I must protect me, I want to continue functioning, this is information I monitor to ensure I live, I will respond to information in this way" is essential for everything from a brainlesss sea sponge to a human [/Quote]
es
the point is that choice that bostrom is considering, is a false one.
We already are not happy with number of people versus amount of resources available.
To suggest, that Advanced Civilization will develop and use computational power in order to simulate ever
growing number of outdated civilzations or individuums, is propostrous.
Only meaningful way of using computational power is to optimize the future of the individuums and of Civilization.
This is precisely what Advanced Civilization will care about
:)
eS
"If we are a simulation", then the simulator is a crazy entity, that is most likely to destroy itself, probably because of its oscession with simulating.
So we probably will be able to find a way to increase its simulation complexity, like starting own simulations inside the simulation inside the simulation...,
to the extent that we could liberate ourself though its overloading and crash.
:)
eS
What has apparently happen, is that because people have lost the spiritual depth - they need some pseudoscientific crap like simulations theories
and such, to fill the void internally, and to become interesting to each other externally.
People can not handle the reality, without therapeutic lies.
That is all that there is to it.
A rock cannot be V-shaped.
Why?
Because the force that have split along most of the rock, would fully split it in two :eek:
eS
[QUOTE=MacGyver;27959]are you trying to say that it's [B]impossible[/B] for nature to make a V-shaped split in a rock without the whole thing breaking?[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Especially, as we are talking here about the case when the split joint has branching angle zero, and V angle is not zero.
eS
here is a diagram, that shows the physical limitations of the Moore law continuation.
By 2050 it will expire for single processor systems.
By 2032, doubling of performance will occur in 5 five years instead 18 month by Moore law.
Eventually, the number of processors growth will become impossible propositon too, so computational performance for multiprocessor systems will reach its plato also.
[IMG]http://marslife.us/mycommon/asympt-performance-3.JPG[/IMG]
:horn:
eS
[QUOTE=Bob C2;27824]here appears, on the surface, to be a fundamental conflict between Q.M. and SR as we study this situation.[/QUOTE]
There is not such conflict.
The appearance of conflict arises from incosistancy of the analysis.
Mistake 1. Nonrelativistc QM is combined with SR considerations
Mistake 2. The measurement is assumed to happen instanteneously.
Mistake 3. Entanglement is a mistake in itself, which arises from misunderstanding of projection postulate - its pronouncement is about infinitely long measurment, so application of it brings up the mathematical uncertainty of limit when order of changing variables changes
:confused:
es
[QUOTE=Bob C2;27824] Let's say that the red guy measures the photon at point A to have Left Polarization. According to Q.M. Entanglement theory, the instant the point A photon is measured as Left, then at that instant the other photon at red's point B must take on a state of Right polarization, even though they could be an arbitrarily great distance apart. This seems bizarre. ...[B]The only answer seems to be that's just the way Q.M. works.[/B] .[/QUOTE]
See, QM does not work [I]this way[/I].
The QM predicts, that if measurement instrument is oriented like the mesured photon, no state chamge happen.
On other hand, if measurement instrument is oriented at some angrle to the mesured photon plarization, the [B]resulting state after measurement[/B] will be one of two possible outcomes with probabilities depending on the angle.
In any case, state of photon B can be changed only by its measurement{[U]which is possible only where it is cocated[/U]}, not be the mesurement of photon A{[U]which is possible only where photon A is cocated[/U]}
:confused:
eS
there are actually a few equivalent interpretations of two-slit experiment.
The one that is easiest to generalize, is that the material wave goes through both slits, and reaches detector(s).
Which detector is activated(eventual position measured) is determined by termo fluctuations of detectors' mater.
Since the wave is a particle and detector is designed to absorb that particle, the wave is converging to that detector/position.
eS
The term "Quantum Computing" is used to describe certain ideas
1. Parallel execution of the same algorithm over different data, using linear superposition of computational states
Claimants just forget to tell you, that this is possible only for linear agorithms, it is not a way to do general computing, that digital computers do
2. Using Quantum Measurement as a way to obtain the results of computation
Claimants just forget to tell you, that Quantum Measurement takes indefinite time, and if you want to get precise result then your measurement must take infinite time, it is not a way to do fast computing
If you take those two false claim away, there is nothing left of current "Quantum Computing" theories, algorithms and suggestions
eS
Ben,
Here are two interesting objects I would like your opinion about:
First seems to be not a rock, at least not a usual rock, as it has a split end and a complicated shape in general.
The second is a stereo of what was suspected to be water ice under the Phoenix, with holes.
Might be a fuel from landing. It does not look like new ice, may be some old compressed snow, as it is not trannsparent.
http://marslife.us/mycommon/split-bone.JPG
http://marslife.us/mycommon/ice-hole2.jpg
Thanks,
e
[QUOTE=Doolittle;28119] semi-classical approach with space-time diagrams doesn't work for, say, electrons.[/QUOTE]
I believe it does not wark properly for photons either, just is is not so obvious to pinpoint.
The entanlement situation of two particles is about the same as what is self-interference of ONE particle, say in double slit experiment of electrons.
Anyway, the relativistic issues are really errelevant here, they simply confuse the basic CASUALITY problems involved.
Best,
es
Funny,
nobody challenges wrong claim by author, that genome size 50meg is not fully describing complexity of mind.
Using my usual estimate 50 programmer years, each programmer has to write 1 megabyte of code a year, which is about 200 pages.
Hard work, but it is about 25 lines of code a day, pretty close to the programming norms, for such ballpark calculation!!!
eS
I would expect 10^19 flop is the human brain raw speed.
Ray suggests it is the upper estimate.
It is possible to have higher than human intelligence with 10^12 flop, due to use of more efficient than the brain's algorithms.
Consider however the megawatts of power consumption currently needed.
eS
{{
SEED Technology
Integrated Brainstorming, Design, and Development
}}
{{
Plan-Search-Remember-Learn-Generalize-Instantiate operation: second search gives lower priority to unsuccessful branching,
gives higher priority to successful branching; uses additional search rules
}}
{{
Search Related knowledge: decisions and their efficiency remembered
Logical Equations and solving them
Problem presentation as a Logical Equation
Search for a Solution
Splitting Problem and Integrating solutions
}}
{{
Natural language processing => translation of notional referenses and sentnces,
into actionable internal references and relations, analogies etc.
multiaspect - multidimentional analogies
detailness of analogy
precision of analogy
level of analogy
{
unification of knowledge/data => analogy linking
at solution search time | at knowledge optimization time
approximate unification, quality and precision of analogy
}
{
changes recording:
what_context::by_which_processing::what_condition::which_variant
}
multistep rules for game against unintended consequenses.
do-nothing/skip step/
Scheduling/rescheduling of moves
{{
referenses, dereferencing :: level of
search
indexing, caching
common memory support
common knowledge support
[common] devivative knowledge search support
[common] decision support
infrastructure for agents and robots
}}
{{
specialized prosessing:
mass data processing,
mass data-stream processing,
imaging processing,
communication processing,
math-expressions processing
math processing
}}
}}
http://www.networkworld.com/research/2008/062308-artificial-intelligence.html
We do not need to have formal "definition" of something, in order to think or talk about it.
We have to be in some sort of synch, it is enough in most important cases.
If we have lost our soul, we are not better than robots, this is my point.
eS
What is definition of definition? - someone've said :)
What is existence, and reality?
Basically, it is a rejection of simulation.
Nobody in his right mind would suggest, that worm's and bacteria's perceptions are simulated, although halfwits claim that human's are - and are geting paid for it :)
The logic of existance is:
*If anything exist, something exists.
*If nothing exists, you have nothing to read right now.
*If something is perceived or imagined, at least that perception or imagination exists.
*All that exists is composing a reality.
*Reality is based on the material reality.
;)
eS
[QUOTE=Lil_cup;28125]...[/QUOTE]
lil, I did not read books by Kaku, or even his string theory works. All the stuff that I have heard him to at least silently support,
is not original ideas - they are old failed speculations.
On the string theory I rely on the opinion by other physicists, who say that it was undoing of Physics.
So your assumption that I am motivated by getting at Kaku, is totally of mark.
I am interested in issues, and do not care, that an authority supports lies or that some view is attacked, I stand for the truth as I see it.
eS
[QUOTE=Bob C2;28140]if the double slit experiement with a single particle interfering with itself is completely misinterpreted.[/QUOTE]
If you are aware of possibilty and use of different PRESENTATIONS in quantum theory, which can be changed from and to by unitary transforms,
you can see how the different interpretations of data can produce exactly the same results.
Only when you discover more general theory, you fully see the advantage of one representation over another.
However, when you do not have that more general theory yet, you might see the advantages of one representation over another
because you can use the better representation to more successfully combine your limited theory with other knowlege,
to explain experiments that can not be explained solely by you limited theory.
I have explained my way of seeing the doule slit few messages above. I find this way the most helpful of them in dealing with other situations and issues.
As to the entanglement issue, the experiments that one see, are not specific enough, or not fully enough described,
in order to conclude existance of any nonlocality or noncasuality.
Einsten did not suggest any internal variables, he just has poined out that the probability interpreation of wave function
and/or primitive use of projection postulate, logically lead to nonlocality and noncasuality.
eS
[QUOTE=Bob C2;28156]So, which do you prefer when explaining the double slit experiment, the Heisenberg picture or the Schroedinger picture?[/QUOTE]
i was trying to explain that it is not always that one view of data is directly right, an other is directly wrong.
What I use is closer to Heisenberg, as it is based on wave function instead of path amplitudes used by Feynman etc.
As my own "contribution", I interpret the seemingly random choice of single photon hit - as one, that is caused by classical randomness of the phonon state of the screen, in other words randomness due to heat screen atom movements, intead of usual attributing it to quantum probability amplitude.
eS
Horton,
@@@ I'm sure an "in-house" version has already been created @@@
I am not! You are still too optimistic of the people in spite of you experience
They are functional idiots, boxed into the mutual conformism.
As a programmer, you might appreciate this example of several years go.
I have developed a converter from Unix signals into C++ exceptions, for Sun Solaris. Which lets you to protect a program from ever crashing,
just by handling exceptions.
Do you think Sun has made use of it, considering needs at least of their military customers?
Horton,
I have noticed something unusual in the left corner of the trench, near dark spot uncovered by the scoop, with magnification.
Something sticks out of the ground. I will not say what I think it is, before you or others suggest opinion 8)
LWS,
This is the one. Horton started this thread of thought.
And slightly south-west from the center of my re7, where a blue dot is seen by naked eye, with 3D glasses one can see something like grass blade raising in your direction!
Which could not have been a contamination from lander at this depth, could it?
There is a chance that they might be able to microscope and/or analyze the material.
I am going to e-mail such suggestion to someone of Univesity of Arizona that I had connection on Mars issues before.
I would suggest that you and others urged lander team to try, at least to make an effort to do such analyzis.
e :shock: s
Sure there is big distinction between cult and religion.
Like there is one between cult and culture :)
The Religion achieves positive synergy of teaching and reality.
A cult is a failed, ill conceived and poorely exeuted attempt of such synergy.
Both sides are not without blame:
the Science has get corrupted, as it makes easy money by pseudoeducation and pseudoresearch like Nanotech and Quantum Computing.
The public is too ready to fall for shell games, and believes anything it see on TV, or marked "scientist said" in newspapers or online.
Instead of funding Science and expecting returns from the truth it discovers, we are funding promises that as a result became lies.
**
The Philosophy always was an area where Religion and Science overlap.
Current attempts of Science to get separated from Religion, are in essense on MindX end up making of Spinosian God of the World.
Not very bad attempt, but it is surely defeating the idea of Science, free of Religion :)
eS
[QUOTE=seta37;28341] ANY field (ESPECIALLY new fields) will have their share of false representation because they KNOW some people will fall into it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is an inevitable part of human condition, and I guess I am too tight up and wishing for sort of impossible purity. The lies greese up the wheels of progress :decision:
However, look what results are in other areas, like current lending/housing crisis, dotcom bubble etc.
If not checked, the acceptable level of dishonesty grows into the crisis - which is a correction, good for the whole.
May be QC nad MT are in for such correction now, maybe at later point - but they are obvious candidates.
es
Some important points could be made:
1. We are understandably afraid of even imagening the things that are possible, much less discussing them - so terrible they look for outsider. Well, we must take history one step at a time. We will cross every bridge when we get there. Every day has enough worries of its own.
2. Some special "Superhuman intelligence" is an oximoron, since "intelligence" covers everything.
3. The challenge that SAI will face intellectually, is not simply to be higher than summ of human intelligences. The reason for that is, the collective ways that humans iteract.
4. The actual physical limitations on hardware powers are likely to allow creation of higher than human intelligence, but not millions times higher. No computer Gods in cards, sorry.
The thing still is, that even moderate handicap in intelligence can totally screw us up and produce unemployment in intellectually charged professions - if we will have to compete with machines.
:)
Gauge 12, 20
buckshot #1
licence
@@@ religions will react to the upcoming singularity. But that is all they will be able to do - they might put a dent or chip in it, but overall they will not be able to stop it.
The singularity is inevitable. @@@
It has always been the case, that as technology advances, social revolutionary changes happen.
Currently, all machines together are 10000 times physically more powerful than all human beings together.
If they will become intellectually competitive with humans, new revolutionary changes are inevitable.
I would expect although that SAI will create its own religion, to become fully spiritual machines.
eS
Everithing is connected to the elevation of spirit, which is best embodied in teaching of Christ.
Will the SAI be better than humans in that also, as in the other facets of spirit and intellect?
It is a possibility, as is a possibility that at the same time human spirit might be declining
eS
I consider Christ a historical figure, who has come up with ethical teaching of great power and perfection.
That it has been expressed in a form of religion, is a fact that was practically important - but is irrelevant in the context of philosophical understanding.
You seem to be against the religious form, and oblivious of the philosophical and moral content.
Lighten up!
eS
The antitheists are aginst religion, because they are against any truth it might contain.
They want to be free to lie and betray.
eS
[QUOTE=Notorious_Parody;28730]It doesn't really support very much of your argument against quantum computing (it does, however, provide sufficient support for your opinion on digital computing and moore's law)[/QUOTE]
That is correct.
However, one can use the method from the article,
to estimate time requirements of quantum computation, for example for the factoring.
Since we need to measure result with precision, that would allow to pinpoint the particular answer.
dE = E / 2^(N/2) > h / dT
dT > 2^(N/2) * h / E
E is energy per computation
h is Planck constant
N is number of bits of the factored number
dT is total time of computation
It is clear from this, that the time is propotional [SIZE="3"]2^(N/2)[/SIZE],
not any polynomial function of N, that is claimed by Quantum Computing advocates.
I consider a case of N=1024, which is used for government encription;
E = 64000 TJ = 64 10^15 joule - energy of a large termonuclear bomb;
h = 6.6 10^-34 joule sec
dT > 2^512 * 6.6 10^-34 / 64 10^15 =~ 10^100 sec
which is about 10^92 years
It is many many times longer than our Universe exists.
:dance:
[QUOTE=yuuki;28814]a bunch of superfast operations performed in succession[/quote]
Quite opposite, there is no distinct operations -according to QC paradigm.
[quote]how quantum computers are supposed to work? If you know, explain what the idea is [/QUOTE]
Neglecting nonessential details - you load the data into system, start operation, and after some time the result is ready for you to read/by measurment/.
In my calculation I have assumed, that the operation takes no time, loading takes no time.
The only time that is taken into account, is measurement time :)
And it is prohibitevly huge in the case of factoring, the show case of QC!
eS
[QUOTE=yuuki;28835] You turn it on and it plays chess.[/QUOTE]
Sure.
You do not need to look into details of any QC "algorithms.
They all fit into the paradigm that you have described :)
If you are able to split the problem into the digitally measurable parts, you might have a hybrid computer that could be useful.
That must be specific as you suggest.
But this does not leave much of the wild eyes promises that fuel QC excitement.
eS
you follow the usual faulty approach of putting preconceived notions first, instead of looking at actual evidence.
Check this:
http://marslife.us/proof
[QUOTE=yuuki;28857]why quantum computing is supposed to be faster than regular computing[/QUOTE]
The key word here is [I][B]supposed[/B][/I].
The proponents of QC do not ever count in the [U]measurement time[/U], which is huge.
They assume on the other hand, that calculation time can be reduced by doing simultaneously calculation of different data on the same qubit
due to quantum superposition of states - which is true to some extent but with limited precision.
So they engage in wishful thinking, grossly underestimating total time of calculation, which is balooning because of error correction and results measurement time expenses.
:couch2:
I agree, but that promise is hollow.
As the calculations that I have posted in this thread show,
these algorithms could not decript normal RSA 1024 encription, even given many times longer time than Universe exists, and the energy of H-bomb.
eS
[QUOTE=seta37;28876]are you of the opinion that IN NO WAY CAN WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF QUANTUM RULES IN COMPUTING?[/QUOTE]
We can and we do.
Most of the computing is being done right now using [SIZE="3"][I]elements[/I][/SIZE] that operate based on quantum rules.
But the claim that we can efficiently do the whole computation as a quantum process, is wrong. We need to digitalize the intermediate results -
beause of which the actual computers are hybrid machines and will remain so.
eS
@@@ we are reaching for a new metaphysics that does not rely on faith @@@
This what Christianity initially was, essentially.
It have used Old Testament religion as an expanded metafor, before becaming a religion in the fuller sense.
eS
government embodies the will, not ideas.
So, if there will be many SAIs, they shall need to govern themselves
@@@ There'll very likely be superabundance of everything, and no need for markets or money @@@
Utopian dream, that is, like the village idiot K Marx has had.
"Superabundance" will dry resources fast, without money.
My guess would be, that humans eventually will become computers' slaves, one of the commodities, their prices ruled by supply and demand.
eS
Ray shall die, and he will enjoy it too.
Read Shakespeare's "Hamlet".
By the way, "consciousness" is consciousness of what?
Lets say you have consciousness of somebody else.
Who is the subject then?
Consciousness is always consciousness of some body - somebody.
If a computer is conscious, it is its cosciousness. If it is emuulating your consciousness at some point,
and it is faster or slower than you - next moment its consciousness is far different from yours.
Nothing else can have your consciousness, but you.
So do not fool yourself ;)
:)
eS
Singularity means all out War
posted on 07/02/2008 1:25 PM by extrasense
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]
[Not MindX Material]
Somebody must say the truth: the Singularity war is coming.
The reason why Mutually Assured Destruction prevented nuclear war, was the uncertainty of outcome for either side.
The Supersmart Supercomputer will be able to eliminate said uncertainty, as well as dramatically shorten the decision time.
The side that will have spotted the winning window of opportunity, will go ahead before it closes, practically immediately.
Seems to be logical, is not it?
ES
The idea that SSAI will somehow be above goal orientation, does not make sense - instead it will be Superbly Goal Oriented.
The idea that it will somehow overcome thermodynamics and ligt speed limit,is pure nonsense.
When SSAI comes, it will make sure that there is single state and one authority, which is controlled by it.
eS
[quote]de Garris predicts a major war between the supporters and opponents of intelligent machines[/quote]
It is not what I am "predicting."
The Big Bang War will be between SSAI and all the other human-SAI world.
!If! SSAI that Singilarity relies on, will be possible to create :)
eS
@@@ Would it really take a plethora of scientists and engineers to develop SAI? @@@
You are grossly overestimating the resources involved. Just 25 programmers for two years are needed.
Ten years ago I was sure that SAI is already created and that it is advising the government.
But since, I came to the conclusion that government is too bureaucratic to understand and embrace the potency of AI.
Unless faced with actual SAI terrorism, it is most likely to continue its backward approach to the World.
eS
Ex,
You can be logical, at least almost :)
Before we could have a chance to achieve Super-Civilization level, we need to create SAI.
Pretty soon after that the BBW will ensue, almost regular thermo-nuclear war, only with SAI in control.
The winning SAI will rule the World, and it is pretty likely to eventually shut down the human Civilization, and then to shut down itself.
Being the standard procedure, would not it explain our current tendencies and the Fermi paradox - to you satisfaction?
eS
@@@ the SAI will be goal-oriented @@@
We just want those to be our goals..
Which is not helpful at all, since "our goals" subjct to change as our abilities change.
Give us a chance, we want to rule or destroy eveything ;)
es
Redemption Confirmation #: RAAAA
Requested Redemption Amount: $31,620.00
Principal: $30,000.00
Total Interest: $1,620.00
Taxable Interest: $1,620.00
Federal Tax Withheld: $.00 (Based on the Taxable Interest)
Net Payment: $31,620.00
Payment Destination: Wachovia Bank
Routing Number: 031000503
Credit Account #: *****8855
Redemption Date: 07-02-2008
The payment destination you provided should be credited within one business day of the redemption date.
You redeemed the full value of this security:
Your Security:
Confirm #: IAAAA
Purchase Schedule: None
Type: Series I Savings Bond
Principal: $.00
Issue Date: 01-01-2007
Redemption Value: $.00
Registration: Alexander Zeltsman