Forums > Social Discussion > Computers are taking over the world while we arnt watching
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
so its just gone past midnight and im sitting here in at uni coding away and all of a sudden i hear this odd noise coming from one of the other cubicals, and i know everyone else has long since gone home. Feeling a tad bit spooked i get up go over and theres silence, thinking it must have been an aircon unit shutting off or somehting i go sit down again. A few moments later i hear it again so i get up again and walk over only to see the cd drive on one of the computers close followed by silence. Feeling a little stunned i go sit down again only to hear the noise again so i get up and go watch the computer and the cd drive starts opening and closing then half opening then closing pausing etc etc, so i move the mouse and there computers unlocked with nothing running ....... spooky huh?
so its just gone past midnight and im sitting here in at uni coding away and all of a sudden i hear this odd noise coming from one of the other cubicals, and i know everyone else has long since gone home. Feeling a tad bit spooked i get up go over and theres silence, thinking it must have been an aircon unit shutting off or somehting i go sit down again. A few moments later i hear it again so i get up again and walk over only to see the cd drive on one of the computers close followed by silence. Feeling a little stunned i go sit down again only to hear the noise again so i get up and go watch the computer and the cd drive starts opening and closing then half opening then closing pausing etc etc, so i move the mouse and there computers unlocked with nothing running ....... spooky huh?
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
I love ai. I mean, it's not like we're going to program it with emotions, unless we want it to be intelligent (
) or to be made in our image. Why would it kill us off? Is there some reason that a newly created ai would be pure evil? Or do you think it's coldly logical to kill off the thing that built you, especially if there isn't a robot about that is as versatile as we are.
And hell, it's not like it will be soon, since evolution had to go through all those duds to get to us. We'll for a long time make AI's without sentience. And then maybe people will be less scared of them. I know we've done ants and like slugs and maybe crickets and stuff already.
And hy would AI's be any better at hacking and cracking than we are? Are they somehow able to reach into their lower mind levels and use them to control the internet? No, not unless we program them too. It would be like us reaching down into our hypothalamus and changing our hormone levels. We just can't do it. Or maybe deciding we want to see the world how it is and turning off all those visual tricks that allow us to see what we think is a normal vision of the world. It's impossible.
And I was really pissed off with the deep blue team. Or deeper blue, or whatever they called it. Instead of using clever heuristics and algorithms that understood something about clever chess play, they just used brute force. It would have been a triumph for AI, if it had had any in it.
I love ai. I mean, it's not like we're going to program it with emotions, unless we want it to be intelligent (
) or to be made in our image. Why would it kill us off? Is there some reason that a newly created ai would be pure evil? Or do you think it's coldly logical to kill off the thing that built you, especially if there isn't a robot about that is as versatile as we are. And hell, it's not like it will be soon, since evolution had to go through all those duds to get to us. We'll for a long time make AI's without sentience. And then maybe people will be less scared of them. I know we've done ants and like slugs and maybe crickets and stuff already.
And hy would AI's be any better at hacking and cracking than we are? Are they somehow able to reach into their lower mind levels and use them to control the internet? No, not unless we program them too. It would be like us reaching down into our hypothalamus and changing our hormone levels. We just can't do it. Or maybe deciding we want to see the world how it is and turning off all those visual tricks that allow us to see what we think is a normal vision of the world. It's impossible.
And I was really pissed off with the deep blue team. Or deeper blue, or whatever they called it. Instead of using clever heuristics and algorithms that understood something about clever chess play, they just used brute force. It would have been a triumph for AI, if it had had any in it.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
GOLD Member
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
4,437 posts
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
4,437 posts
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
Posted:
So my toaster isnt going to try and kill me?
So my toaster isnt going to try and kill me?
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind
Give a man a fish and he'll eat 4 a day hit a man with a brick and you can have all his fish and his wife
"Will's to pretty for prison" - Simian
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
maybe tomorrow....
maybe tomorrow....
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I'm familiar with quantum theory and particle/wave duality to produce random events. As well as radioactive decay (the example often used nowadays for the brutal execution of Shrodinger's cat)...
It really comes down to how one defines 'random'.
There is a solid school of thought that every reaction has a preceeding action.
According to your use of double slit experiments, there is no preceeding action that governs which slit the particle will travel down (oversimplification of course)...
You're using a scientific definition of a random event. I'm using a mental interpretation of the concept of random.
It's apples and oranges.
And whatever arguement (double slit, radioactive decay, etc...) that you put forth to assert that human behaviour is random could also be used to assert that computer behaviour is random. It would be just as easy for a computer to be set up to react to a double slit experiment as a human.
My initial point was that humans are just as random as computers but with more variables. (A coin toss being just as random as a die roll.)
Written by: ben-ja-menWritten by: onewheeldave
Any evidence for this?
Or reasoning that supports it?
yes "the quantum brain" by jeffrey satinover explains it really well, id try to summarise it but its kind of one of the conclusions of a 225 p quantum physics/Alife book
I'm familiar with quantum theory and particle/wave duality to produce random events. As well as radioactive decay (the example often used nowadays for the brutal execution of Shrodinger's cat)...
It really comes down to how one defines 'random'.
There is a solid school of thought that every reaction has a preceeding action.
According to your use of double slit experiments, there is no preceeding action that governs which slit the particle will travel down (oversimplification of course)...
You're using a scientific definition of a random event. I'm using a mental interpretation of the concept of random.
It's apples and oranges.
And whatever arguement (double slit, radioactive decay, etc...) that you put forth to assert that human behaviour is random could also be used to assert that computer behaviour is random. It would be just as easy for a computer to be set up to react to a double slit experiment as a human.
My initial point was that humans are just as random as computers but with more variables. (A coin toss being just as random as a die roll.)
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
wow now theres a good logical arguement if ever i heard one. so either youve read the book and know the section im refering to as theres no way you could possibly be discrediting the idea based on the whole singular line i wrote to convey it ...... or your just close minded? i mean really wtf!?! please tell me that you have read the book .....
hmmmm i know lets see what some physics professors thought about the book
"Thoroughly researched ...A marvelous introduction to the most fascinating question the human brain can address. " R. Shankar, Professor of Physics and Applied Physics, Yale University
"The author has set new standards for popular science writing by making arcane topics easy to follow. A tapestry of insights" Jack Tuszynski, Professor of Physics, University of Alberta
"I wish i had written this visionary book" Professor Hugo de Garis, Head, Starbrain Project, Starlab's Artificial Brain Project (Associate Professor Dept. of Computer Science and Adjunct Associate Professor Dept. of (Theoretical) Physics)
Written by: jeff(fake)
Pity it's wrong. Mabey I'm being elitist but is it really suprising that a book written by a psychiatrist on a subject about high level biology and quantum physics would reach wrong conclusions based on wishful thinking?
wow now theres a good logical arguement if ever i heard one. so either youve read the book and know the section im refering to as theres no way you could possibly be discrediting the idea based on the whole singular line i wrote to convey it ...... or your just close minded? i mean really wtf!?! please tell me that you have read the book .....
hmmmm i know lets see what some physics professors thought about the book
"Thoroughly researched ...A marvelous introduction to the most fascinating question the human brain can address. " R. Shankar, Professor of Physics and Applied Physics, Yale University
"The author has set new standards for popular science writing by making arcane topics easy to follow. A tapestry of insights" Jack Tuszynski, Professor of Physics, University of Alberta
"I wish i had written this visionary book" Professor Hugo de Garis, Head, Starbrain Project, Starlab's Artificial Brain Project (Associate Professor Dept. of Computer Science and Adjunct Associate Professor Dept. of (Theoretical) Physics)
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'm familure with the authors arguements and with biology and quantum physics. The arguements are flawed due to the authors chronic misunderstanding and ignorance of quantum theory, particularily those parts related to decoherance, and he provides no decent evidence.
On a side note you are falling into the fallacy of appeal to authority. Quoting praise from random physicist from inside the book itself is not evidence. You should know better than that.
I'm familure with the authors arguements and with biology and quantum physics. The arguements are flawed due to the authors chronic misunderstanding and ignorance of quantum theory, particularily those parts related to decoherance, and he provides no decent evidence.
On a side note you are falling into the fallacy of appeal to authority. Quoting praise from random physicist from inside the book itself is not evidence. You should know better than that.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
so what NYC is saying is: The quantum wave collapse is the only truely random event, because it can't be predicted based on anything we know / can observe / have any theory for.
Theoretically, if you could control your muscles well enough, and calibrate the distance to the ground, windspeed, weight of the coin etc., you could flip a coin to land the same way up every time.
But you would have to be benegesserit for that. Jedi would just use the force to control the coin's landing.
so what NYC is saying is: The quantum wave collapse is the only truely random event, because it can't be predicted based on anything we know / can observe / have any theory for.
Theoretically, if you could control your muscles well enough, and calibrate the distance to the ground, windspeed, weight of the coin etc., you could flip a coin to land the same way up every time.
But you would have to be benegesserit for that. Jedi would just use the force to control the coin's landing.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Presumably though, you understand the argument for the claim you make below?
Speaking for myself, part of what constitutes me understanding a point of view I support and defend, is that I can explain it to others in a fairly consise way.
If I held a point of view which I'd read in a book, and yet was unable to explain it because it was too complex (or for whatever reason), then I think I'd have to question whether I do actually understand it.
I'd be especially wary of presenting it as a fact.
IMO, to put forward the proposition that human beings can act as 'quantum amplifiers' (presumably in a way that other things, such as AI, can't) with no substantiation whatsoever, says little more than, that you probably like the sound of the proposition, or that you wish it to be true.
Written by: ben-ja-men
Written by: onewheeldave
Any evidence for this?
Or reasoning that supports it?
yes "the quantum brain" by jeffrey satinover explains it really well, id try to summarise it but its kind of one of the conclusions of a 225 p quantum physics/Alife book
Presumably though, you understand the argument for the claim you make below?
Written by: mcp
quantum effects are generally cancelled out on a macro scale. Hence water does boil when you watch it.
Written by: ben-ja-men
this is true as a general rule however human beings can act as quantum amplifiers making it possible to bring random events to our scale of existence
Speaking for myself, part of what constitutes me understanding a point of view I support and defend, is that I can explain it to others in a fairly consise way.
If I held a point of view which I'd read in a book, and yet was unable to explain it because it was too complex (or for whatever reason), then I think I'd have to question whether I do actually understand it.
I'd be especially wary of presenting it as a fact.
IMO, to put forward the proposition that human beings can act as 'quantum amplifiers' (presumably in a way that other things, such as AI, can't) with no substantiation whatsoever, says little more than, that you probably like the sound of the proposition, or that you wish it to be true.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Read the story (I'll edit this later to get the title) by Isaac Asimov where a robot clearly and logically denies that humans could have possibly created him. The basic idea is that a superior being cannot be created by an inferior one. And why shouldn't he consider himself superiour? He's faster, stronger, smarter, tougher... and he ends up worshipping the power core as a deity
But surely if someone created (for want of a better word) "Real" A.I. then surely the thinking process of the entity must be inextricably linked to the mentality of whoever programmed it? Human intelligence has universal rules, which would have to be followed in a truely intelligent robot. Wouldn't they?
Read the story (I'll edit this later to get the title) by Isaac Asimov where a robot clearly and logically denies that humans could have possibly created him. The basic idea is that a superior being cannot be created by an inferior one. And why shouldn't he consider himself superiour? He's faster, stronger, smarter, tougher... and he ends up worshipping the power core as a deity
But surely if someone created (for want of a better word) "Real" A.I. then surely the thinking process of the entity must be inextricably linked to the mentality of whoever programmed it? Human intelligence has universal rules, which would have to be followed in a truely intelligent robot. Wouldn't they?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
I could argue that point sethis, but I thought of something more interesting.
Anybody read stephen wolframs Book? I don't think I need to name it, just call it Book. One of it's conclusions is that there is no machine more computationally powerful than a turing machine. Not even the universe. Therefore building a 'superior' creation is something of a mute point. This is a tangent thou.
OWD: I don't know if I *need* to explain my argument. I could just sit in the kitchen and watch some water boil instead.... But it's the same as the double slit experiment, thou the collapse is random, an interference pattern is still produced on the other side. It's a pattern, not a random picture.
In the water's case, we can't observe closely enough to affect the outcome. Our observation doesn't interfere with the process. (thou it does on a quantum scale.) There may be some cancelling out process also involved as you go up the scale, but I've forgotten about it, if there is. I did read about this stuff in school after all.
>"Real" A.I. then surely the thinking process of the entity must be inextricably linked to the mentality of whoever programmed it?
why? It would be programmed by a large group anyway, over a long time, building on previous work. I should like to think that we can divorce our personalities from our work.
why hasn't john searle come up yet? I want to beat up his [censored] arguments again.
I could argue that point sethis, but I thought of something more interesting.
Anybody read stephen wolframs Book? I don't think I need to name it, just call it Book. One of it's conclusions is that there is no machine more computationally powerful than a turing machine. Not even the universe. Therefore building a 'superior' creation is something of a mute point. This is a tangent thou.
OWD: I don't know if I *need* to explain my argument. I could just sit in the kitchen and watch some water boil instead....
But it's the same as the double slit experiment, thou the collapse is random, an interference pattern is still produced on the other side. It's a pattern, not a random picture. In the water's case, we can't observe closely enough to affect the outcome. Our observation doesn't interfere with the process. (thou it does on a quantum scale.) There may be some cancelling out process also involved as you go up the scale, but I've forgotten about it, if there is. I did read about this stuff in school after all.
>"Real" A.I. then surely the thinking process of the entity must be inextricably linked to the mentality of whoever programmed it?
why? It would be programmed by a large group anyway, over a long time, building on previous work. I should like to think that we can divorce our personalities from our work.
why hasn't john searle come up yet? I want to beat up his [censored] arguments again.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
No.
Written by: Sethis
But surely if someone created (for want of a better word) "Real" A.I. then surely the thinking process of the entity must be inextricably linked to the mentality of whoever programmed it? Human intelligence has universal rules, which would have to be followed in a truely intelligent robot. Wouldn't they?
No.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
"Until about a decade ago ... the conventional wisdom was that all disordered samples are self averaging, so that ensemble fluctuations are no more important than, for example thermal fluctuations in a classical ... gas. It turns out, however, that .... at finite temperatures, quantum coherence sets a new mesoscopic scale" - J.P. Keating et al., Disordered Systems and Quantum Chaos: Report from the Organisers (New York: Cambridge University, 1997)
"chaotic dynamics among multiple interacting quantum elements somewhat compensate, surprisingly, for the quantum destroying effects of decoherence - rather as thermal vibration suprising can as well - and similarly requires thermal agitation. Aggregate, disordered quantum systems thus can demonstrate orderly quantum behaviour (of a unique kind) at a "mesoscopic" scale - midway between the typically ultramicroscopic scale of quantum events and the everyday - without isolation from the environment and without coherence. The quantum behaviour of its much smaller scale constituent elements is thus reflected in the behaviour of the aggregate, rather than being averaged away. The same heat that destroys quantum coherence enhances the alternate form of orderliness that results from quantum chaos"
the section on the experiments showing the patterns generated by quantum scarring resulting from quantum chaos appeared to me as though the author understands the concept of decoherence.
ok dave ill try and explain it, the dual slit example is a simple example of how an event subject to quantum randomness can be translated to a larger scale, quantum amplification is taking a random event and taking it to a larger scale where the randomness would normally be lost due to the net effect amounting to zero.
note flipping a coin is pseudo random ie its mechanically deterministic.
chaotic behaviour arises in systems that are iterative, so for a system to have chaos it must be iterative which the human brain is, to be iterative for multiple scales the main structure at each scale must also be iterative in the brain it goes tubulin -> microtubule-> cytoskeleton->neuron->cluster->tissue->brain region->brain
explaination of how chaos prevents decoherence see quote above.
now with a show of hands who understood what i just wrote?
EDITED_BY: ben-ja-men (1136473525)
Written by: jeff(fake)
I'm familure with the authors arguements and with biology and quantum physics. The arguements are flawed due to the authors chronic misunderstanding and ignorance of quantum theory, particularily those parts related to decoherance, and he provides no decent evidence.
"Until about a decade ago ... the conventional wisdom was that all disordered samples are self averaging, so that ensemble fluctuations are no more important than, for example thermal fluctuations in a classical ... gas. It turns out, however, that .... at finite temperatures, quantum coherence sets a new mesoscopic scale" - J.P. Keating et al., Disordered Systems and Quantum Chaos: Report from the Organisers (New York: Cambridge University, 1997)
"chaotic dynamics among multiple interacting quantum elements somewhat compensate, surprisingly, for the quantum destroying effects of decoherence - rather as thermal vibration suprising can as well - and similarly requires thermal agitation. Aggregate, disordered quantum systems thus can demonstrate orderly quantum behaviour (of a unique kind) at a "mesoscopic" scale - midway between the typically ultramicroscopic scale of quantum events and the everyday - without isolation from the environment and without coherence. The quantum behaviour of its much smaller scale constituent elements is thus reflected in the behaviour of the aggregate, rather than being averaged away. The same heat that destroys quantum coherence enhances the alternate form of orderliness that results from quantum chaos"
the section on the experiments showing the patterns generated by quantum scarring resulting from quantum chaos appeared to me as though the author understands the concept of decoherence.
Written by: jeff(fake)i agree its not evidence however the fact that they are professors of physics and havnt automatically dismissed the book like yourself suggests that it might not be complete rubbish.
Quoting praise from random physicist from inside the book itself is not evidence. You should know better than that.
ok dave ill try and explain it, the dual slit example is a simple example of how an event subject to quantum randomness can be translated to a larger scale, quantum amplification is taking a random event and taking it to a larger scale where the randomness would normally be lost due to the net effect amounting to zero.
note flipping a coin is pseudo random ie its mechanically deterministic.
chaotic behaviour arises in systems that are iterative, so for a system to have chaos it must be iterative which the human brain is, to be iterative for multiple scales the main structure at each scale must also be iterative in the brain it goes tubulin -> microtubule-> cytoskeleton->neuron->cluster->tissue->brain region->brain
explaination of how chaos prevents decoherence see quote above.
now with a show of hands who understood what i just wrote?
EDITED_BY: ben-ja-men (1136473525)
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
*head explodes*
What, exactly, does a twin slit experiment have to do with making tea/boiling water?
If the single photon in the twin slit experimenty thing was in excatly the same plane, down to a billionth of a very small distance measurement, could it follow exactly the same path as the photon before it? could one, therefore, use that technique to be able to predict where the photon ended up?
Is there such a thing as truly random?
*head explodes*
What, exactly, does a twin slit experiment have to do with making tea/boiling water?
If the single photon in the twin slit experimenty thing was in excatly the same plane, down to a billionth of a very small distance measurement, could it follow exactly the same path as the photon before it? could one, therefore, use that technique to be able to predict where the photon ended up?
Is there such a thing as truly random?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
No it doesn't. Overextending a study on a different subject that hasn't been peer reviewed and possibly incorrect proves nothing but his own creduality and scientific niavety.
No it doesn't. You can find "proffessors" who will say anything you like. The title doesn't carry much weight in America where it is simply given to any lecturer. In all likelyhood I know more about quantum physics than these so called experts
As one of a few small group of people with a very good knoweldge of microbiology and quantum physics, I understood every word. It was complete bullsh!t. I'm very disappointed in you be-ja-men, espeacily at how you've become so completely taken in by this to the point that you aren't willing to listen to any rational arguement
.
Written by: ben-ja-men
the section on the experiments showing the patterns generated by quantum scarring resulting from quantum chaos appeared to me as though the author understands the concept of decoherence.
No it doesn't. Overextending a study on a different subject that hasn't been peer reviewed and possibly incorrect proves nothing but his own creduality and scientific niavety.
Written by: ben-ja-menWritten by: jeff(fake)i agree its not evidence however the fact that they are professors of physics and havnt automatically dismissed the book like yourself suggests that it might not be complete rubbish.
Quoting praise from random physicist from inside the book itself is not evidence. You should know better than that.
No it doesn't. You can find "proffessors" who will say anything you like. The title doesn't carry much weight in America where it is simply given to any lecturer. In all likelyhood I know more about quantum physics than these so called experts
Written by: be-ja-men
now with a show of hands who understood what i just wrote?
As one of a few small group of people with a very good knoweldge of microbiology and quantum physics, I understood every word. It was complete bullsh!t. I'm very disappointed in you be-ja-men, espeacily at how you've become so completely taken in by this to the point that you aren't willing to listen to any rational arguement
. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
So you're saying that quantum effects can be amped up to a level where they will play a part in the actions of our brain, hence allowing us to have truly random input, which computers cannot and hence real ai is not possibly?
In fact I don't think you're saying that at all. I think you do believe real AI is possibly, and that computers too can have random input.
If I were me, I would hate random effects interfering, (or perhaps you are inferring, creating) my consciousness.
But there are already completely valid and logical (in any way a vast psychology can be logical) explainations for human consciousness, we don't need another ghost in the machine explaination. (or in this case, quantam in the machine)
I think if more people were willing to believe that your brain is perfectly willing to lie to you, people wouldn't believe such horse [censored] theories about the human consciousness.
So you're saying that quantum effects can be amped up to a level where they will play a part in the actions of our brain, hence allowing us to have truly random input, which computers cannot and hence real ai is not possibly?
In fact I don't think you're saying that at all. I think you do believe real AI is possibly, and that computers too can have random input.
If I were me, I would hate random effects interfering, (or perhaps you are inferring, creating) my consciousness.
But there are already completely valid and logical (in any way a vast psychology can be logical) explainations for human consciousness, we don't need another ghost in the machine explaination. (or in this case, quantam in the machine)
I think if more people were willing to believe that your brain is perfectly willing to lie to you, people wouldn't believe such horse [censored] theories about the human consciousness.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I do NOT understand how any of this supports your arguement that computers are not subject to random events but humans are.
Written by: ben-ja-men
now with a show of hands who understood what i just wrote?
I do NOT understand how any of this supports your arguement that computers are not subject to random events but humans are.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
im confused which part are you saying is incorrect?
i must be missing your rational arguement somewhere
"Pity it's wrong."
and
"I'm familure with the authors arguements and with biology and quantum physics. The arguements are flawed due to the authors chronic misunderstanding and ignorance of quantum theory, particularily those parts related to decoherance, and he provides no decent evidence."
dont constitute an arguement if you havnt read the book (hence why i orginally said read the book if your interested) ..... can u please elaborate as to why what i wrote is complete bullshit then i might be able to see your rational arguement ....
Written by: jeff(fake)
No it doesn't. Overextending a study on a different subject that hasn't been peer reviewed and possibly incorrect proves nothing but his own creduality and scientific niavety.
im confused which part are you saying is incorrect?
Written by: jeff(fake)
As one of a few small group of people with a very good knoweldge of microbiology and quantum physics, I understood every word. It was complete bullsh!t. I'm very disappointed in you be-ja-men, espeacily at how you've become so completely taken in by this to the point that you aren't willing to listen to any rational arguement
i must be missing your rational arguement somewhere
"Pity it's wrong."
and
"I'm familure with the authors arguements and with biology and quantum physics. The arguements are flawed due to the authors chronic misunderstanding and ignorance of quantum theory, particularily those parts related to decoherance, and he provides no decent evidence."
dont constitute an arguement if you havnt read the book (hence why i orginally said read the book if your interested) ..... can u please elaborate as to why what i wrote is complete bullshit then i might be able to see your rational arguement ....
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Hrmm... no fair paying attention to me and THEN ignoring me. If you're going to ignore, at least be consistant.
Probably for the best anyway. Since I don't have this magical book that automatically makes you right.
Hrmm... no fair paying attention to me and THEN ignoring me. If you're going to ignore, at least be consistant.
Probably for the best anyway. Since I don't have this magical book that automatically makes you right.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I don't need to read the book. The author has published it on the internet. The author maintains that various cell stuctures like microtubules are used to harness quantum effects but there is no evidence for this (and before you go and make a link, non-peer reviewed tosh is only evidence of stupidity) and it flies in the face of all that is known about quantum physics and molecular biology. So for the reasons of abscence of evidence and contraction of theory it's a safe bet that it's rubbish. The author's abscence of relevent credentials and history of credulance is simply icing and the cake.
I don't need to read the book. The author has published it on the internet. The author maintains that various cell stuctures like microtubules are used to harness quantum effects but there is no evidence for this (and before you go and make a link, non-peer reviewed tosh is only evidence of stupidity) and it flies in the face of all that is known about quantum physics and molecular biology. So for the reasons of abscence of evidence and contraction of theory it's a safe bet that it's rubbish. The author's abscence of relevent credentials and history of credulance is simply icing and the cake.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
humans
human brains are comprised of iterative components that have layers, each layers core unit is iterative, quantum effects can be amplified up
computers
there is not a stochastic response to using a computer, if you know all of the internal states of the memory you can predict exactly what it will do next and it will do the same thing everytime without fail. whatever quantum effects take place inside the computer they are averaged away in the register states, in computers the register states act digitally even though current is analog
Written by: NYCWritten by: ben-ja-men
now with a show of hands who understood what i just wrote?
I do NOT understand how any of this supports your arguement that computers are not subject to random events but humans are.
humans
human brains are comprised of iterative components that have layers, each layers core unit is iterative, quantum effects can be amplified up
computers
there is not a stochastic response to using a computer, if you know all of the internal states of the memory you can predict exactly what it will do next and it will do the same thing everytime without fail. whatever quantum effects take place inside the computer they are averaged away in the register states, in computers the register states act digitally even though current is analog
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
No they can't. Quantum effects quickly converge with classical effects as scale increases even if it's components are subject to them. If that weren't the case then every thing would follow quantum mechanics since all matter is built up out of much smaller units.
Is it becoming increasingly clear that you are wrong?
Written by: ben-ja-men
human brains are comprised of iterative components that have layers, each layers core unit is iterative, quantum effects can be amplified up
No they can't. Quantum effects quickly converge with classical effects as scale increases even if it's components are subject to them. If that weren't the case then every thing would follow quantum mechanics since all matter is built up out of much smaller units.
Is it becoming increasingly clear that you are wrong?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
the effect is progated via the tublin acting as cellular automata inside the microtubules which in turn act as a CA inside the cytoskeleton acting as a CA inside a ........
once again in a hand wavey kind of way you still havnt explained why what i wrote was complet bullshit.
Written by: jeff(fake)
The author maintains that various cell stuctures like microtubules are used to harness quantum effects but there is no evidence for this
the effect is progated via the tublin acting as cellular automata inside the microtubules which in turn act as a CA inside the cytoskeleton acting as a CA inside a ........
once again in a hand wavey kind of way you still havnt explained why what i wrote was complet bullshit.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
I think it's clear that everybody is ignoring my increasingly correct arguments instead they are pursuing this increasingly dull line of argument.
I will go away and make some incorrect dull ones.
I think it's clear that everybody is ignoring my increasingly correct arguments instead they are pursuing this increasingly dull line of argument.
I will go away and make some incorrect dull ones.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Because they don't behave in that way. The author has made it up because he's an idiot. And you believe him without question because you're guilible. Can I make it any clearer?
So to concur with mcp and get back to the discussion, real ai is perfectly possible.
Written by: ben-ja-menWritten by: jeff(fake)
The author maintains that various cell stuctures like microtubules are used to harness quantum effects but there is no evidence for this
the effect is progated via the tublin acting as cellular automata inside the microtubules which in turn act as a CA inside the cytoskeleton acting as a CA inside a ........
once again in a hand wavey kind of way you still havnt explained why what i wrote was complet bullshit.
Because they don't behave in that way. The author has made it up because he's an idiot. And you believe him without question because you're guilible. Can I make it any clearer?
So to concur with mcp and get back to the discussion, real ai is perfectly possible.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
so i suppose the following are all made up to and that the people who wrote them are idiots to?
S. R. Hameroff and R. C. Watt, "Information Processing in Microtubules," Journal of Theoretical Biology 98 (1982): 548-561;
S.R. Hameroff, S.A. Smith, and R.C.Watt, "Automaton Model of Dynamic Organization in Microtubules," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 466 (1986): 949-952
C.G.Langton "Studying Artificial Life with Cellular Automata," Physica D 10, no 22 (1986):120-149
Hameroff, Stuart, Steen Rasmussen and Bengt Månsson (1989): "Molecular automata in microtubules: basic computational logic of the living state?", pp. 521-553 in: C.G. Langton, ed.: Artificial Life, (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol.6). Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley Publ. Co.
so i suppose the following are all made up to and that the people who wrote them are idiots to?
S. R. Hameroff and R. C. Watt, "Information Processing in Microtubules," Journal of Theoretical Biology 98 (1982): 548-561;
S.R. Hameroff, S.A. Smith, and R.C.Watt, "Automaton Model of Dynamic Organization in Microtubules," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 466 (1986): 949-952
C.G.Langton "Studying Artificial Life with Cellular Automata," Physica D 10, no 22 (1986):120-149
Hameroff, Stuart, Steen Rasmussen and Bengt Månsson (1989): "Molecular automata in microtubules: basic computational logic of the living state?", pp. 521-553 in: C.G. Langton, ed.: Artificial Life, (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol.6). Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley Publ. Co.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
and yet, as if by magic, real ai is still possible! Wooooo!
randomness can be programmed in.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT ben-ja-men?
and yet, as if by magic, real ai is still possible! Wooooo!
randomness can be programmed in.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT ben-ja-men?
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Well I at least understand what you're saying now. I think that it's easier to imagine a ideal situation for a computer than for a human brain due to the number of variables.
You are suggesting that there are a finite number of variables that affect a computer and an infinite number of variables that affect a human.
I disagree.
But again, I don't have the book.
Written by: ben-ja-men
humans
human brains are comprised of iterative components that have layers, each layers core unit is iterative, quantum effects can be amplified up
computers
there is not a stochastic response to using a computer, if you know all of the internal states of the memory you can predict exactly what it will do next and it will do the same thing everytime without fail. whatever quantum effects take place inside the computer they are averaged away in the register states, in computers the register states act digitally even though current is analog
Well I at least understand what you're saying now. I think that it's easier to imagine a ideal situation for a computer than for a human brain due to the number of variables.
You are suggesting that there are a finite number of variables that affect a computer and an infinite number of variables that affect a human.
I disagree.
But again, I don't have the book.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Yup, the interior of microtubules don't have two interchangeable states as author instists. If he had bothered to research microtubules properly he wouldn't have made this error which destroys the entire theory.
Yup, the interior of microtubules don't have two interchangeable states as author instists. If he had bothered to research microtubules properly he wouldn't have made this error which destroys the entire theory.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
ARGH!
1) This whole argument is: Hey look, humans have this computers don't, therefore computers can never be truly conscious.
In this case is randomness introduced by amplified quantum effects.
And yet, computers can have random effects added to their programming too. So this argument is done. unless ben wants to add something.
2) Or maybe ben-ja-men is trying to say this new argument: Humans have a special thing, called a soul, it resides, computers don't have the and therefore thou they can mimic intelligence, they don't have souls and aren't really properly conscious. (Because you need a soul to be properly conscious)
Now we've come a long way from the pineal gland, but maybe ben-ja-men is stating that the human 'soul' or part that makes us self aware, resides in the quantum effects. (Thou since he seems to be saying they add randomness, don't seem to be a very good medium for a soul.)
I don't believe this argument either.
This is also where the john searle argument came in, but I'm going to resist the urge to bash it yet again.
ARGH!
1) This whole argument is: Hey look, humans have this
In this case
And yet, computers can have random effects added to their programming too. So this argument is done. unless ben wants to add something.
2) Or maybe ben-ja-men is trying to say this new argument: Humans have a special thing, called a soul, it resides
Now we've come a long way from the pineal gland, but maybe ben-ja-men is stating that the human 'soul' or part that makes us self aware, resides in the quantum effects. (Thou since he seems to be saying they add randomness, don't seem to be a very good medium for a soul.)
I don't believe this argument either.
This is also where the john searle argument came in, but I'm going to resist the urge to bash it yet again.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
not wishing to pick a fight here, but, jeff, if the authors that are positive peer reviewing this book are absolute idiots, then can the same assumption be drawn from your negative peer review?
I mean, how do i know you really exist?
not wishing to pick a fight here, but, jeff, if the authors that are positive peer reviewing this book are absolute idiots, then can the same assumption be drawn from your negative peer review?
I mean, how do i know you really exist?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [computer * world arnt] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com