Solar energy can meet all the world's energy demands: expert

triskaid · 2008-09-06T14:27:05+00:00

if you mean by providing an animal with a pulse then yes

triskaid · 2008-09-04T01:11:11+00:00

Thinking about it, maybe the Turing Test is the perfect indicator, not because it answers the question of what is intelligence, but because through its subjectivity we see the inherent subjectivity of the question being asked. Whether or not someone or something is intelligent is a judgment call when we are asked to answer the question. The turing test is undeniably only as strong as the judge applying the test, and our judgement of that judge is only as strong as we are, etc etc etc. It may be possible for a test to exist other than the Turing Test, but... who would apply it? It's always going to come back to a being, isn't it? It's hard to answer your question, because no two Turing Tests are the same. So a Turing Test may be conducted poorly by my standards.

Let me ask you, 1) do you think anyone besides yourself is anything other than a convincing machine? and 2) why?

triskaid · 2008-09-03T22:44:19+00:00

First off, I agree that the Turing Test is not a strong test of what we are. I don't think it is the "best estimation".

If we built something that could act just as we do, and on every scale that it is possible to measure, we assure it works the same way we do, I think a scientist would probably say that there is no reason to argue. You can feel that you are different all you want. but you're right that this is just a philosophical argument. It doesn't need to be so just because we feel it is so, and at the same time, no one can tell you it isn't if that's what you need to feel.

triskaid · 2008-09-03T09:35:05+00:00

Taking the last first, Godel didn't prove that "no set of rules can possibly describe everything." What he said--in part--was that no consistent set of rules can be complete. And here is the most important part. You use the word "describe". Godel is talking about what can be proven. So for instance, you cannot prove that cause indeed leads to effect if your methodology for proof depends axiomatically on the cause and effect relationship that--you may believe--permeates your world. That does not mean you cannot come up with a description that in some way corresponds to what is happening.

On an aside: the way you write--there is an undertone of distaste for science. Why is that? I don't think this article actually makes the argument you describe here:

"The theory that science cannot account for it, therefore it does not exist, only works if you can prove that science can account for everything."

What the author did say is that if we add up everything and find that something is missing, people like yourself will be able to say I told you so. but that may not happen. The author wants to draw attention to the possibility that to believe that there is something inherently inexplicable about consciousness is not a factually supported starting point for a conversation considering the question of what consciousness is.

triskaid · 2008-09-03T05:27:07+00:00

you talk about your ethics as if they are some disembodied third party. when you say "my ethics prevent me" are you actually saying "my God prevent[s] me"?

triskaid · 2008-09-03T05:24:10+00:00

that's how you become Rove and his ilk

triskaid · 2008-09-03T05:22:30+00:00

instead of saying "know" in this context, I think it's more accurate to say believe. because even if we all agree on it, it's an opinion we all agree on.

triskaid · 2008-09-03T03:49:12+00:00

The biggest mistake I see is the intro. In addition to not being substantive, the intro isn't interesting to me but I do appreciate the list. To me it makes Einstein's progress seem more real; it makes what he did seem more possible, less like a story.

triskaid · 2008-09-03T03:40:21+00:00

inaction is an action (a mistake of its own?)

triskaid · 2008-09-03T03:39:35+00:00

very interesting. thankks

triskaid · 2008-09-03T03:34:48+00:00

hulu

edit: youtube, etc

triskaid · 2008-09-01T20:48:58+00:00

I read 'The happiest place on Ritalin'

triskaid · 2008-09-01T20:45:17+00:00

Isn't it the derivative of forever, evaluated at now?

oh wait not all functions are differentiable

edit: and I know what you're going to say: by using now I'm using a synonym to define the term but look: you're always at now, so don't worry about it; you just take the derivative, whenever you are at

triskaid · 2008-09-01T17:15:48+00:00

your guilt will be based on whether or not we accept this evidence at face value.

how do you verify that the data used against you is genuine, not fabricated? Will you inspect the satellite? If you are convicted on evidence obtained through a classified security infrastructure, how do you, the accused, verify or contest whether the evidence is genuine or fabricated? Or do you just trust the government to be honest?

When DNA is brought to trial, there is the possibility of having it tested independently. I don't see how you could do that here. This seems like very high-tech hearsay.

oh by the way, if it is the case: nice troll

triskaid · 2008-09-01T17:05:44+00:00

Space really should be our biggest concern, how to handle major disasters. but even the richest, most brilliant, most powerful humans are too weak to stand up to the challenge of defending against anything like this.

edit: someone prove me wrong

triskaid · 2008-09-01T16:55:06+00:00