Forums > Social Discussion > Computers are taking over the world while we arnt watching

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
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?

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?

Delete Topic

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: mcp


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.... wink



I wasn't asking for an explanation from you, or commenting on anything you'd said- my comment was directed soley to Ben's point of view.

It happens that Ben was knocking something you said, and so you were included in the quote.

I should probably have done something with the quote to make it clear that I wasn't addressing you, so apologies for that.


"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!

Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted:it wasn't aggressive! That as what the wink wwas for. And I realised that it wasn't directed at me, but I thought it might add to the content of my post to stick that stuff in anyway.



so no appolgies needed.


"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.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: MiG

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? tongue


The answer the first paragraph:because what I say is confirmed by reality.

To answer the second deep philosophical question I counter with the baseball bat arguement. Although the link is about intelligent design I'm sure you can understand what I'm trying to say. wink

For now I await the ascendance of our robot overlords.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)


 Written by: ben-ja-men


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


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? Humans (or any other kind of life) aren't anything special from a chemical or phyical view. mcp is right as always, the brain is too big and hot for quanta to play an effect.



i saw what the bleep down the rabbit whole yesterday and in the credits noticed that one of the presenters was the author of the quantum brain, but i suppose now you will tell us that all of the scientists that took part in what the bleep dont know what they are talking about to? i am curious though jeff you seem to be "the authority" on quantum physics and high level biology able to completely dismiss journal articles with the wave of a hand without having even read them, what was it that you completed your phd thesis topic on exactly?

"Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. (psychiatry), (www.satinover.com) M.S. (physics, doctoral candidate in physics). For over twenty years, Dr. Satinover has been an author and practicing psychiatrist. He was until recently a teaching fellow and doctoral student in the department of physics at Yale University, where he has completed a masters degree as a member of the Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics group and Yale's newly-established W. H. Keck Foundation Center for Quantum Information Physics. His area of research is in supersymmetric many-body theory as applied to quantum computation. His most recent book, The Quantum Brain, explores the interface of neuroscience, computation, artificial intelligence and quantum mechanics. He is presently completing his doctorate in physics at the Laboratoire de Physique de la Matiere Condensee at the University of Nice, Sophia Antipolis, under the direction of Didier Sornette, pursuing new techniques in the prediction of chaotic time series, with applications to biological systems, climate change and markets."

http://www.whatthebleep.com/scientists/drh-scientists.shtml


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?

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:So you are using the propaganda film of the Ramtha cult against me? What the Bleep is pretty much one of the most ridiculed 'science' films ever made. It is a piece of religious indocrination.

I had thought better of you. frown

I've pointed out that microtubules don't have two interchangable states, this is well known in biochemistry. The entire quantum mind arguement rests on microtubules having two interchangable states. Thus Dr. Dumbass M.D's entire arguement falls apart.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:For those of you with no idea what we are talking about, here is the review from the BBC:

 Written by: BBC movies


Physics get turned into metaphysics in What The Bleep Do We Know!?, a documentary aimed at the totally gullible. Shifting from quantum theory to mystical mumbo jumbo in the blink of an eye, it blends hard science fact with Star Trek visuals, and talking head interviewees with a deadly dull drama about hearing impaired photographer Amanda (Marlee Matlin) and her attempts to achieve a happier life through positive thinking. What does it all mean? We're bleeped if we know.

It's tough to separate the science fact from the science fiction in this attempt to explain life, the universe and everything. Bringing together 'authorities' from the world of science and religion - and sometimes kooky characters from both camps - the three (count 'em) directors come up with some strange theories about quantum physics and the power of positive thinking. If you take What The Bleep at face value, you'll believe that it's been scientifically proven that labelling jars of tap water with negative or positive words actually changes the shapes of the water molecules themselves, or that mass meditation can reduce crime rates, or that reality is just a holodeck, or... Well, you get the idea.

"LESS STEPHEN HAWKING, MORE OPRAH WINFREY"

Eagerly pushing a New Age agenda this is less Stephen Hawking, more Oprah Winfrey: the self-help manual for the multiplex audiences of the 21st century. It feels like an advert for a cult, so it's no surprise to learn that the filmmakers allegedly have ties to the kooky folk at the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. Credulity required.




According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:wait im confused ..... these ppl have done phds in physics n stuff but what your saying is that a film reviewer better understands quantum physics than them???

once again you havnt answered my question as obviously your an expert on quantum physics obviously with more knowledge than the people in what the movie what the bleep .... what was your phd thesis topic ?


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?

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Ben, see Appeal to Authority fallacy.



You can't seriously argue that What the Bleep is anything other than pseudoscienctific bullsh!t. Surely when J.Z.Knight started to channel the soul of an Atlantian warrior you must have been slightly sceptical about the whole thing?



Or mabey you've just worked this into your personal religion. But if you are going to preach scientific falsehoods expect to see them challenged.



EDIT: Oh wait, I'm sorry. Ramtha is from the lost island of Lemuria, not Atlantis. The whole thing becomes plausible now. rolleyes



EDIT:It seems that the directors took certain liberties with the footage of one of the experts...

David Albert, a philosopher of physics at Columbia University, is outraged at the final product. He says that he spent four hours patiently explaining to the filmmakers why quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness or spirituality, only to see his statements edited and cut to the point where it appears as though he and the spirit warrior are speaking with one voice. I was taken, Albert admits. I was really gullible, but I learned my lesson. (from Cult Science).

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1145361066)


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Ry
Ry

Gromit's Humble Squire
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Member Since: 2nd Feb 2005
Total posts: 4496
Posted:jeff: Now I'm curious too. What was your phd thesis? You're bashing a lot of highly qualified people who worked hard to get where they are today. I know you keep saying Ben's wrong and flawed, but apart from that and your sweeping conclusion on the nature of microtubules, you're not presenting a case. If you were on a debate team, it wouldn't score with an otherwise neutral spectator like myself.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:You do not need a phd to discuss science, or to refute the likes of Dr. Emoto. All you need is a rational mind, which is what these people lack. I've shown over the last few pages that quantum effects are lost in mesoscopic structures like the brain, and I've shown how the proposed method to avoid this, the microtubules, does not work.

This movie show exactly why having a phd doesn't make you right.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Ry
Ry

Gromit's Humble Squire
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Member Since: 2nd Feb 2005
Total posts: 4496
Posted:I don't think you've shown what you say you have. The phd doesn't make them more right than you could be. It does however show the depth at which they've approached the topics, and the years they've dedicated to it. To me, you've just shown a topic statement.

Start building your case already.. Like as if you mean to persuade an audience- not like you're trying to tell the audience how right you are.


Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted:yes, even a phd in a relevant field doesn't make you an expert. I could get a phd in practically any subject I choose and still have minimal knowledge of some parts. I could probably have miminal knowledge of the field of the phd and still get it, that's what I did with my degree.

also ben, you didn't reply to my post, which I hope was trying to get to the bottom of your argument without getting bogged down in arguments.

I was really hopeing to destroy john searles chinese room argument again. I reread it and it's even more utter crap than I rememeber. Ah well.

Plus you don't need a degree in philosophy to understand logic, so why the pointless questions? You should attempt to understand jeff's arguments instead of questioning his credentials. Crendentials didn't make einstein right.


"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.

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:wow jeff im impressed, you have a rational mind which gives you the capability to discredit peer reviewed journals, i mean WOW thats one hell of a gift. what would impress me even more is if you can copy and paste your arguement where you have clearly showm how quantum effects are lost in mesoscopic structures like the brain. in particular making reference to how it discredits the references i previously provided.

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 Mnsson (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.
and how it discredits


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?

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted: Written by: mcp


yes, even a phd in a relevant field doesn't make you an expert. I could get a phd in practically any subject I choose and still have minimal knowledge of some parts. I could probably have miminal knowledge of the field of the phd and still get it, that's what I did with my degree.


i agree a phd doesnt make you an expert on an entire field no arguement there at all. jeff presents himself as an authority
 Written by:

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?


even though it turns out that jeffrey satinover the books author is doing his phd on the topic in question, hence one would assume to continue to discredit his work without having read the book that jeff would be a specialist in that particular field

 Written by: mcp


also ben, you didn't reply to my post, which I hope was trying to get to the bottom of your argument without getting bogged down in arguments.


*shrugs* its so lost in all the pages feel free to repost it

 Written by: mcp


You should attempt to understand jeff's arguments instead of questioning his credentials. Crendentials didn't make einstein right.


please paste his actual arguement in its entirity that discredits the authors work


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?

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Most of those articles have nothing to do with Quanta anyway, those that do have since been refuted. What exactly were you trying to prove here? umm



You have to keep up to date. Twenty year old papers just don't cut it. Especially when they don't support your thesis.



EDIT: This is obviously a matter of faith for you. Perhaps it's better not to hold a rational discusion about it.

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1145365654)


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:if you talk about the validity of AI ppl will cite turing paper from 1950 as its still relevent. feel free to cite a more recent paper that discredit them and i will humbily concede that you are right. the articles are to do with microtubules being used in propogating information hence quantum effects upwards in scale.

seriously copy and paste your rational arguement that discredits the work and i will concede defeat.


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?

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: ben-ja-men


feel free to cite a more recent paper that discredit them and i will humbily concede that you are right.


Cold Numbers Unmake Quantum Mind Science 4 February 2000:
Vol. 287. no. 5454, p. 791

More as I find them...


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted:

 Written by: mcp


ARGH!

1) This whole argument is: Hey look, humans have this <special thing> computers don't, therefore computers can never be truly conscious.

In this case <special thing> 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 <special place>, computers don't have the <special place> 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.



and ben, I was talking to ry, not to you.

I keep forgetting people have small pages, where I have big pages.


"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.

Delete

Ry
Ry

Gromit's Humble Squire
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Member Since: 2nd Feb 2005
Total posts: 4496
Posted:Meg: I'm having a go at the way jeff makes his points really. A topic statement saying what he thinks, and a collection of support statements which mainly consist of various parties being idiots. I don't think he makes points very well and constructs a very disjointed case. Anyway. I'm over this thread already. I'll leave the fate of the scientific world to all of you to battle it out.

Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted:Yeah I know he a bit of an idiot in all the ways you put across. But he does have a valid argument. Unfortunate, but true. wink

"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.

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:right im going to have one last try to explain this via an example then im going to leave this.



tubulin -> microtubule-> cytoskeleton->neuron->cluster->tissue->brain region->brain



for the sake of this example lets take a very simplistic view and assume that each microtubule has a value between 0 and 10 each, and that the value of each component is twice the integer average of the surrounding components. so if we had



0 0 4

7 x 9

8 2 3



then the value of x in the next iteration is 8



so if we look at a slightly larger grid



0 0 4 0 5

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 0 0 1



the next iteration will look like



1 3 2 5 2

4 5 4 5 3

3 3 4 3 2



and then



3 4 5 4 3

4 6 8 7 4

3 5 5 4 3



etc etc



so what we have is a Cellular Automata (CA) which in this case is a pattern that the next state can simple be determined by the previous state.



now suppose that the threshold at which a neuron fires is determined by the average of the CA on the scale below it, so this value is constantly varying, however when the neuron fires and the rate at which it does so is still completely predictable by looking at the previous state



in which case the state of the entire brain could be calculated if you knew the previous state of it at all its levels.



now because of the scale of the microtubulin its subject to quantum weirdness. so now if the value is calculated by twice the integer average of the surrounding components + a value between 0 and 10 for particles appearing. assuming its 0 most of the time theres no big effect but there will be occasions where



0 0 4 0 5

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 0 0 1



becomes



1 3 2 5 2

4 5 5 5 3

3 3 4 3 2



this change may be enough to change the firing threshold for the above neuron, which under certain circumstances when it would have previously fired it wont fire which affects the clusters state and then possibly the tissues and possibly part of the cortex. so instead of the minor change being averaged away as in the case of a glass of water it is amplified due to the iterative nature of the brain. this is the original point of the book



meg please copy and paste his arguement as i dont seem to be able to find it and he doesnt want to copy and paste it



*edit* the links working now, its argueing that the brain isnt a quantum computer due to its temperature causing the probability wave to collapse into a single state, i agree. however that was never the point, the point is that if quantum weirdness affected the state of one element that effect could have a ripple effect up in scale whether it be because quantum tunneling occurs and changes and influences the state or whatever weirdness u like the point is the effect is amplifed up

*end edit*

EDITED_BY: ben-ja-men (1145429455)


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?

Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted:I still think that even small random effects that are amplified up to the macro level can't provide a <special thing> that provides a 'soul'. The random part kinda gives it away. I don't think random effects are a good container for a soul. Plus, computers can also have random effects added in, and chips could be designed to be susceptible to quantum effects. So in the end, there's no difference again, and strong AI is still possible.

ben: who's argument?


"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.

Delete

coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:*been reading this thread for a while now*

ben, since you claim that we understand the processes behind these quantum amplification effects in the brain (as you attempt to describe above), why could we not conceivably design a computer in the future that reproduces this amplification of quantum events and thus, give an ai a 'real' conciousness?

has anyone here read penrose's 'shadow of the mind'?

like most of penrose's work, its a good read and is well worth a look.

if you have read or do go and read it, make sure you follow up with this page, which has some discussion and commentary on the ideas presented in the book and contains some extremely interesting debate on some of the subjects we are trying to debate here.


if i were you though ben, i'd avoid using terms such as 'quantum weirdness' as they betray a fuzzy understanding of the concepts involved - either define 'quantum weirdness' explicitly or use a term that describes the phenomena that you are referring to more accurately.


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted: Written by: ben-ja-men


 Written by: mcp


quantum effects are generally cancelled out on a macro scale. Hence water does boil when you watch it.


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


this was my original statement. its only random because we cant predict it, all it means is that there is room for information to be coming from somewhere outside of the brain, i dont remember using the s word, just saying that quantum events can be amplified to our level of existence.

meg: jeffs argument the one you think is valid


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?

Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted:jeff was right about using appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

Ben, you're still claiming that quantum effects are the only things differentiating us from computers? So you accept that code could simulate the rest of our brain apart from the quantum affects? And this is why computers can't ever be truely sentient. I was calling the distinction of being indistinguishable from a true sentience but not being one and being a true sentient, a 'soul'. (thou indistinguishable might not be the case)

So you're arguing that quantum effects allow us to be conscious but since computers don't have them they can't be conscious.

Is this the case? Or am I putting words in your mouth? This is the same set of questions I've been asking for the previous 8 posts. But I guess actually arguing is not what threads on hop are about.


"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.

Delete

Richee
HOP librarian
Location: Prague
Member Since: 15th Jan 2002
Total posts: 1841
Posted:Actually this take over is called Grey goo

and has several aspects that make it nearly too

far in the future.



(Im watching it, there is one nice book about

nanotech and grey goo, let me know for it.)



lightning,



:R


POI THEO(R)IST

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:meg cole what i originally wrote was

 Written by: ben-ja-men


so its possible for us to make a decision completely at random (ie we cant work it out based on looking at the internal state/history of the individual as the decision is based on random nondetermined phenomenon), something a computer doesnt do as it follows its program to the last zero.




its not something computers currently do, by no stretch of the imagination was i implying that in the future they could not, that would be almost as bad as saying man will never make it to the moon. i have no doubt that machines will far surpass human capabilites in all aspects.

im argueing that quantum amplification means that you cant determine a person next state of being souly by examining their state a being a few instants before but with the current state of computing if you look at its current state you can accurately predict its next state.

as for consciousness .... thats a dirty dirty word much like intelligence

meg: i ment jeffs arguement against quantum amplification


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?

Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted:Well I stated the argument I thought was correct. I'm not going to do jeffs work for him.

But computers can make random decisions... they just have to be programmed to? I'm sure there's little randomising hardware for computers that will check some external factors to make a truely random number for decision making purposes.

and no, I don't really think the difference between a deterministic form of randomness and a truely random form of randomness will make any difference.

if randomnumber > 50 then action1
if randomnumber < 50 then action2


where the actions can be decision or changing the values of a neurons activation threshold or whatever.


"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.

Delete

MiG
MiG

Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG
Member Since: 16th Apr 2004
Total posts: 3415
Posted:if computers had intelligence, would they get headaches?

"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA

"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie

Delete

Page: 123